Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

HYTHE MARINA VILLAGE (SOUTHAMPTON)

WAVESCREEN BILL

ISLE OF WIGHT BILL

Orders for consideration of Lords amendments read.

To be considered on Thursday.

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords]

Orders for consideration read.

To be considered on Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

AIDS

Mr. Strang: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications have been made to the social fund since its inception for loans and grants by people with AIDS; and how many of these have been refused.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I am afraid that the information requested is not available. Applications for social fund payments are quite properly not required to give any information about their medical condition, and thus data on the number of applications from people suffering from a particular medical condition is not collected.

Mr. Strang: When will the Government accept that the social fund has been a social disaster for the poor? Is the Minister aware that people with AIDS are among those who are suffering most as a result of the abolition in April 1988 of the weekly additions and special payments?

Mr. Scott: The Government have demonstrated their concern for AIDS sufferers and the terminally ill by announcing the intention to extend entitlement to attendance allowance. Far from being a failure, the social fund has been a success because of the help that it has given at the margins of the social security system to those most in need of help. It is certainly a great deal better than the system that it replaced.

Mr. Key: I acknowledge the work that the Government have done for AIDS sufferers. However, will my right hon. Friend ensure that social security officers in local offices receive training on aspects of AIDS and how it may apply to the social fund? Will he also have a word with our right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary about what help prisoners on discharge receive if they leave prison HIV positive?

Mr. Scott: I shall note those points and have a word with my right hon. and learned Friend about the matter. We seek to see that staff in our local offices are trained to deal with the range of sensitive issues with which they are presented, and I shall look at the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) in relation to that.

Mr. Heffer: I recognise that the Government have moved some way in relation to AIDS sufferers, some of whom, of course, were not in any way personally responsible for what has happened to them. However, is it not scandalous that some Conservative Members have said that it was quite right for AIDS sufferers to be treated in the way that they are, when in many cases the sufferers were not personally responsible for contracting the virus? Even if it was the sufferer's fault, it is not right for them to be treated as they are and I ask the Government to have another look at the whole matter.

Mr. Scott: Those matters are generally outwith my responsibility and are rather for health Ministers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the first


tranche of money for the Macfarlane Trust for haemophiliacs suffering from AIDS, and recently an extra £19 million has been provided for that trust.

Sir George Young: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there has been a welcome transformation over the past few years of the public's attitude to AIDS sufferers which has moved from ignorance and prejudice towards sympathy and understanding? The Government should take some credit for that. Will my right hon. Friend ensure, through his Department, that where possible his local offices give help promptly to AIDS sufferers so that they do not have to wait unduly for any assistance that is available to them?

Mr. Scott: I agree with my hon. Friend's first point about the public's attitude and I welcome that, as he has. The removal of the six-month waiting limit for the terminally ill is a significant move towards meeting my hon. Friend's second point.

Pensioners (Charter)

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent meetings he has had with pensioners' representatives to discuss the pensioners' charter; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his policy towards the pensioners' charter; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): While I am not aware of any current request for such a meeting, our policies will continue to reflect our concern with pensioners' needs—as was clearly shown, for example, by the extra help given last October to some 2·5 million of the disabled or older pensioners who are least well off.

Mr. Skinner: Yes, and a lot of those people have written to hon. Members, particularly Opposition Members, to tell them that they did not get a penny piece out of those so-called improvements. Why does not the Secretary of State do something about the pensioners' charter? There is all this waffle and talk about the social charter. Let us give the pensioners a square deal by abolishing standing charges and introducing concessionary fares for all pensioners. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not repay the £12 a week that has been stolen from every single pensioner in the land by this Tory Government in the past 10 years?

Mr. Newton: Many hon. Members will recognise that what most effectively damages pensioners is a roaring rate of inflation such as we had during the latter part of the 1970s. Opposition Members cannot disguise the extent to which pensioners' average real incomes have risen faster under this Government than under the previous Labour Government, principally because the rate of inflation has been so much lower.

Mr. Winnick: Why does not the Secretary of State understand the bitter resentment felt by so many pensioners at the way in which they are treated? Is it not the case that if pensions had been increased in line with earnings—an arrangement which was discontinued in 1980—married pensioners would be almost £21 a week

better off and single pensioners £13 a week better off next April? Why should Britain's pensioners be among the poorest in the Common Market?

Mr. Newton: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's proposition for reasons that relate to the absurd experience of what happened when the previous Labour Government pursued those policies. At the same time, and partly as a result of those policies, they generated a rate of inflation which seriously damaged pensioners and which meant that their incomes rose less fast in real terms than they have under the present Government.

Mr. David Nicholson: I am glad that my right hon. Friend mentioned that point. Many retired people in my constituency and in the constituencies of my hon. Friends face difficulty, because they thought that they had made provision for their retirement through savings or modest occupational pension schemes. They found that inflation in the 1970s, under a Labour Government who could not even keep the promises that they made to pensioners, destroyed those savings. I hope that my right hon. Friend will continue his efforts to ensure that pensioners, particularly those in need, continue to receive better benefits.

Mr Newton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. His point is encapsulated in the fact, which is becoming increasingly well known, that whereas pensioners' income from savings has risen by 64 per cent. under the present Government, it fell by 16 per cent. under the previous Labour Government. Not all pensioners have the advantage of having savings. It is precisely for that reason that last October we directed so much additional help to the older and more disabled pensioners who are least well off.

Mr. Squire: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that when the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) reach retirement age, they will be entitled, like the majority of people who have employment pensions provided for them, to a generous pension? Does he agree that by concentrating some £200 million last October on the poorer pensioners, the Government are tackling the problem the right way rather than trying to give everyone, including the fairly well off, a much smaller amount?

Mr. Newton: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I am grateful for the way in which he put his point.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Secretary of State mentioned his genuine concern for pensioners. Does he accept that many elderly and handicapped people still face the choice between heating and eating? Would not one way forward be for the Government to provide an allowance for the heating needs of the elderly during the winter months rather than rely on the strange system that we have now, which does not have a good level of uptake?

Mr. Newton: Perhaps the hon. Lady has forgotten that when the changes were made to the old supplementary benefit system and when the current income support system was introduced, the value of heating additions was much reflected in the premiums paid to precisely those groups of pensioners about which she is rightly concerned. In other words, they are reflected in the regular weekly payment of benefit in the form of premiums for pensioners and disabled people.

Mr. Meacher: Why is it that the 2 million poorest pensioners who depend solely on state benefits have had a zero real increase in their pensions under this Government in the Thatcher decade, while the parliamentary pay of Cabinet Ministers has been increased in real terms by no less than 79 per cent? Why is it that Cabinet Ministers have looked after themselves so handsomely, while reneging on their commitment to enable the poorest of pensioners to keep pace with rising living standards?

Mr. Newton: I do not accept for a moment the way in which the hon. Gentleman advanced his argument. He knows well that we have adhered faithfully to our commitment to increase the basic retirement pension in line with prices year in, year out, and we shall do it again next April. As I have said at least twice in this exchange, we acted last October to give significant extra help to about 2·5 million of the older and more disabled pensioners who are least well off. That reflects our concern and determination to continue doing whatever we can to help.

Unmarried Mothers

Mr. Favell: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the level of social security payments made to unmarried mothers.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): At May 1988, the annual cost of income support for families headed by an unmarried lone mother was estimated to be about £700 million. Information by marital status on other benefits paid to those families is not available.

Mr. Favell: Has my hon. Friend anything to say about recent newspaper reports that payments to single mothers are now in excess of £1,000 million? The traditional family has no resentment when it comes to maintaining mothers who have been deserted by their husbands or treated badly by them, but what of those who leave their husbands for no good reason? What about those who have never been married, who have children? Is it not true that a young woman having a baby need not work until the child is 16 years of age, is entitled to free council housing accommodation, and costs other people about £70,000 to bring up her child until the age of 16?

Mrs. Shephard: The Government are concerned about the increasing numbers of lone-parent families, including unmarried mothers, and their reliance on benefit. We are constantly examining the benefit arrangements for them and those for other groups. It is important that the benefit system should not create incentives for lone parenthood or for dependence on benefits, but it should provide support for those who are in need. Of course, fathers should pay maintenance for their children, whether or not they are married to their mothers. The Department takes action to try to secure maintenance and it is considering actively how to make its procedures more effective. I remind my hon. Friend that decisions on maintenance payments are made by the courts.

Mr. Frank Field: Why do the Government continue to stir up apathy on this issue? Are the Government aware that the proportion of young single mothers drawing benefit who gain help from the fathers has halved during the past 10 years? When will the Government bring

forward new plans for the House to discuss, so that mothers can make over maintenance orders to the state, with the state taking responsibility for collecting the money and paying it regularly, weekly or monthly, if the mothers want that? When are we to hear about plans on those lines? They would reinforce parental responsibilities and increase the freedom of single mothers.

Mrs. Shephard: As always, the hon. Gentleman makes an interesting contribution to the debate. He is, at least partly, describing what is happening in Australia. The findings from a recent visit to Australia are being closely studied by my Department. I repeat that the Department is continuing actively to review how to make its own recovery of maintenance payments from fathers more effective. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Department has commissioned some independent research, involving lone parents who are served by 44 local offices, to examine the motivations and perceptions of lone parents. When the research is completed, the results will he fully examined.

Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend consider taking as many increased powers as may be necessary to pursue fathers through the courts and, if necessary, genetic testing to prove paternity where there is doubt?

Mrs. Shephard: The measures that my hon. Friend describes are more suitable for consideration by the Lord Chancellor's Department.

Ms. Short: Will the Minister give an assurance that the Government will not adopt a punitive attitude to lone parents? After all, a significant number of the members of the Cabinet have created lone parents themselves—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] That is true. We heard the comments of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell), and Conservative Members should not have double standards. Is the Minister aware that the number of parents dependent on benefit has grown under the present Government because their benefits policies and cuts have created many poverty traps? Many lone parents cannot take a job because that would reduce their income. Is not the answer to restore child benefit to a proper level, to implement a national minimum wage and to allow lone parents to offset child care costs when they want to work? The Government are trapping lone parents into dependency on benefit, which is not what those parents want—and it should not be allowed.

Mrs. Shephard: Nothing that I have said in reply to questions so far has suggested that the Department wants to take a punitive attitude towards lone parents. It simply does not want to create perverse incentives. I remind the hon. Lady that incentives for lone parents to work already exist within the benefits system. There is an earnings disregard within income support, the same adult credit is given for single lone parents as for couples in family credit. and an increase in the housing benefit earnings disregard from £15 to £25 was recently announced.

Mr. Holt: Will my hon. Friend take it from me that many of my married constituents who pay to bring up their own children resent additional taxation to pay for bringing up other people's children? Can she state the amount of subsidy to local authorities through the rate support system because of the number of unmarried mothers in their areas? That situation is highlighted in my


constituency, where Middlesbrough council receives millions of pounds more than Langbaurgh council, solely because of the number of one-parent families that Middlesbrough must support.

Mrs. Shephard: I have already mentioned the Government's concern at the increasing number of all lone-parent families. Matters relating to the rate support grant are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Social Fund

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the cash limit for social fund loans and grants from Department of Social Security offices at Finsbury park and Highgate for 1989–90 and the amount expended by 18 December in the current year.

Mr. Scott: Information on social fund allocations to local offices is placed in the Library. Finsbury park and Highgate are included. That information is updated monthly.

Mr. Corbyn: The Minister has not given much information that would be of help to anyone. Why is it that in the case of Finsbury park social security office, of the 139 applications for community care made grants during December, 31 were allowed but 61—nearly half—were disallowed, and the remainder carried forward to the next month? That has been happening month after month in the two offices named in my question. Will the Minister put a stop to the practice of carrying forward applications from one month to another so that applicants have to wait longer and longer for desperately needed community care grants? No increase in the cash limit is made available the following year, so in reality the amount of money available for grants to people in my area, as in many other areas of inner London, decreases year on year. People desperately in need of community care grants cannot obtain them, and they suffer as a consequence.

Mr. Scott: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will avail himself of the information that has been placed in the Library to help all right hon. and hon. Members assess the situation at their local social security offices. Some applications in any local office will inevitably slip from one month to the next if they are made late in the month. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not mention in his supplementary question that an extra £3 million was allocated recently to some local offices under particular pressure. Highgate office was one of the beneficiaries.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether anyone has applied for a social fund loan at the Finsbury park office, who has contracted AIDS as a result of an operation or a blood transfusion, but who is not a haemophiliac? If so, will he put those people into the same category as haemophiliacs, and ensure that they receive the welcome assistance that is now being given to haemophiliacs?

Mr. Scott: I suspect that my hon. Friend will not expect me to know whether there are such applications at the Finsbury office, but I shall consider the matter that she raised.

Mr. Frank Field: Would not the position in Finsbury park, Highgate and other offices be massively improved if the Government allowed local offices, as they collect back loans, to keep them to add to the social fund?

Mr. Scott: Of course, the rate of recovery of money from loans affects the national kitty, and resources available nationally. The allocation to local offices is best met by an assessment by us, at the centre, the likely burden, and of the level of need in the local area. I should be reluctant to link the rate of recovery specifically to the resources available in local offices, as that might not reflect the level of need as well as the present system of allocation does.

Child Benefit

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many letters he has received supporting the decision not to uprate child benefit in the coming year.

Mr. Newton: Twenty six.

Mr. Knox: The decision not to uprate child benefit does not appear to be terribly popular. Does my right hon. Friend agree that because of the low take-up of means-tested benefits compared to child benefit, the freezing of child benefit for a three-year period hits poorer families particularly hard?

Mr. Newton: No, I do not agree with that. It is well known that, because of the way in which the system works, an increase in child benefit does nothing for the least well-off families and for those on income-related benefits. What we have been able to do with some of the resources made available is to improve the benefit for the least well off, and for families that includes a quarter of the nation's children. We must recognise that no conceivable increase in child benefit could do as much for low-income families who are in work as family credit now does.

Mr. Orme: Does the Secretary of State agree that he was one of the supporters of child benefit? What has changed? How can he come to the Dispatch Box now and defend the freezing of child benefit?

Mr. Newton: The question whether one is a supporter of child benefit is different from the question whether to increase child benefit as opposed to the other steps that could be taken with the money available. What I was able to do, as I set out in the uprating statement, was to give far more help to the least well-off families than an increase in child benefit would have done, and it did far more for disabled people and families with disabled children.

Mr. Rathbone: I applaud my right hon. Friend's intention to help the least well off. Will he assure the House that more than 50 per cent. of those who are due to receive benefits under the new system are getting them?

Mr. Newton: I assure my hon. Friend that the take-up campaign that we waged last spring was extremely effective in raising the number of people receiving family credit, and I welcome that. The number increased by some 40,000 to about 320,000, and we are currently running a further advertising campaign, which I hope will contribute to making the benefit as effective as we would like it to be.

Mrs. Mahon: Does the Secretary of State accept that child benefit is a universal benefit, with almost 100 per


cent. take-up, and that it is paid to the mother? It is often the only income that she has to herself, of right. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not say, even at this late stage, that he was wrong to cave in to the Prime Minister's Victorian attitude, and that he will uprate child benefit?

Mr. Newton: Family credit is also normally paid to the mother. The average payment of family credit is now £25 or £26 a week, and over a third of the payments are more than £30 a week. There is no doubt that family credit does more for low-income families in work than child benefit could.

Centenarians

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost of sending greetings telegrams to centenarians in 1988, 11 and 16 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I am pleased to say that in 1988 the Department sent a total of 2,142 telemessages to centenarians at an estimated cost of about £11 each. The cost includes the message itself and local and national staffing costs. The cost of sending telegrams in 1972 and 1977 is not readily available; however, 1,283 were sent in 1972 and 1,510 in 1977.

Mr. Greenway: As centenarians already receive a telegram from the Queen, will my hon. Friend gladden that special day in the lives of those who achieve their century by offering them a choice between the departmental telegram, a certificate of age, a bottle of champagne, whisky, brandy or parsnip wine and a tin of House of Commons fudge?

Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend lent a happy note to this first Question Time of the New Year. Today is the birthday of seven centenarians, and given his obvious good spirits my hon. Friend will no doubt wish to join me in congratulating them. As for his specific suggestions, may I make a positive suggestion to him? If I give him the names and addresses of those seven centenarians, he may wish to conduct a straw poll to establish whether they would prefer a certificate of age, a bottle of whisky or brandy or—in particular—some House of Commons fudge!

Mr. Haynes: Mr. Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Declare your interest."] Yes, I declare my interest. I am retiring at the next general election, but that is another matter.
I ask the Minister to ignore the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway): all that he is on about is grabbing money. The people who receive the telegrams are entitled to them. The hon. Gentleman should be pointing out that the welfare state, is responsible for the fact that people are living longer. That lot over there are trying to destroy the welfare state, but when we are sitting where they are we shall put that right, and defend it.

Mrs. Shephard: Let me merely say to the hon. Gentleman, who has made his customary interesting intervention, that the increase in the number of congratulatory telemessages speaks for itself, demonstrating the Thatcher achievements in welfare.

Mr. Holt: My hon. Friend will know that the oldest person in Britain lives in my constituency. She is 112½, and has received more telegrams than anyone else; she enjoys

and looks forward to receiving them. May I suggest that my hon. Friend does as I do, and takes her a bottle of whisky every time she has a birthday?

Mrs. Shephard: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) will take the advice of his hon. Friend.

Mr. Wilson: As there is a precedent for the Department of Social Security to send people telegrams on special days in their lives, will the Minister consider extending the principle to those who reach their 16th birthdays without jobs, YTS places or entitlement to social security benefit? Will she consider the report published today by the Family Policies Study Centre, which has found independently that many of those youngsters face destitution because of the Government's evil decision to withdraw benefit entitlement? Will the Government please repent of that decision, which is causing poverty and hardship for so many 16 and 17-year-olds on the streets of our cities?

Mrs. Shephard: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity in asking such a supplementary to a question about centenarians. I remind him that there is no need for any 16 or 17-year-old to be without income: each and every one is entitled to a YTS place and the accompanying payment.

Couples (Benefits)

Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the financial effect on couples who live apart for employment or educational reasons, of their treatment under the income support, family credit or housing benefit regulations as if they were living together.

Mr. Newton: The financial effect on individual couples will vary according to individual circumstances. As a general rule, as long as both partners normally live in the household, temporary absences are ignored for the purposes of entitlement to income-related benefits.

Mr. Stern: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in a small minority of cases the rule that he has just outlined may lead to one family having two sets of living expenses that often have to be paid for out of one set of benefits? A reduction in a particular benefit can bring that family way below the poverty line, purely because one member of the family has decided to seek training or education as a means of bettering himself or herself.

Mr. Newton: I am not sure that my hon. Friend is absolutely right about training and education. There are special housing benefit arrangements for couples who have to live apart because one of the partners is a student or is on a training course. In those circumstances, housing benefit can be paid for an unlimited period for both homes.

Mr. Pike: Does not the Secretary of State accept that there are some anomalies? If one of the partners has to undergo education or training in order to try to return to employment, on many occasions the couple loses money. Will he undertake to examine the anomalies and ensure that that deterrent to either party returning to education or training is ended and that they do not lose money?

Mr. Newton: I have already referred to one aspect of the way in which the system seeks to take account of that kind


of problem. The hon. Gentleman has made his point fairly and reasonably. I accept that this is a difficult area. These cases are relatively rare and the circumstances can be quite complicated. If there is a particular case that the hon. Gentleman would like to draw to my attention, I shall certainly have a look at it.

Social Fund

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current backlog of social fund loans and grant applications in Department of Social Security offices in London.

Mr. Scott: The latest information available is for November. In London as a whole, 8,500 applications were brought forward as uncleared from October. These were made up of 2,400 community care grant applications and 6,100 budgeting loan applications. There were no outstanding crisis loan applications.

Mr. Banks: The Minister surely knows that the Government are saving a vast amount of money under the new system, as opposed to the old single payments system. It is totally unacceptable that such a backlog should be allowed to develop. Will he please look again at the possibility of introducing more flexibility into the system as a whole? It is ludicrous that certain offices underspend their social fund budget, although applications are outstanding. As that money cannot be carried over to the next financial year, it is lost. There should be some means of transferring money between offices so as to match overspend and underspend. I ask the Minister to look again at the system to see what flexibility can be introduced.

Mr. Scott: We do, of course, monitor very carefully the social fund. It is worth pointing out that the figure that I gave to the hon. Gentleman means that, on average, 35 community care grant applications and 97 loan applications in London's local offices were carried forward. If one bears in mind that in the case of some of those loan applications the client or the applicant had already been offered a loan but had not yet accepted it, that is not too bad a record in all the circumstances. However, as I have already said, we monitor the social fund very carefully.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister look carefully at the report that has been sent to him by the leader of Southwark council—a report which received all-party support in Southwark—requesting a meeting but highlighting cases where loans had been requested but grants had been refused? Is not the system far too inflexible? Many people are turned away when they are totally impecunious. They are told that they cannot have money for a cooker, or furnishings and the rest, so they keep on coming back, hoping, believing and expecting that there must be something in the system that will provide them with the money with which to survive. At the moment, much of the delay is caused because people have to return for money since they have none, on account of the system not allowing them to have grants when they need them.

Mr. Scott: The vast majority of refusals under the social fund are because the applicants do not meet the basic eligibility criteria. Under 10 per cent. of the refusals relate

to insufficient priority being accorded to the application; less than 2 per cent. of refusals are because it is judged that the individual cannot pay. In those circumstances, money, advice or other guidance is given to the individual concerned. I shall of course look carefully at what Southwark is sending me, but it is worth saying that in 218,000 cases where loans have been refused, community care grants have been given instead. However, those loan refusal cases are still included in the statistics.

Mr. Flynn: Is the Minister aware of the independent report by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux which says that 49 per cent. of pensioners' applications to the social fund were refused and that the applications of up to 80 per cent. of young persons and unemployed people were refused? Is he further aware that among those refused was a young woman who was due to have a baby in two days' time? She was refused a grant for a bed on the excuse that she could sleep on the floor, a disabled couple were refused a grant for a cooker on the ground that they could eat out, and a crisis loan was refused to a young man on the ground that he could eat out in soup kitchens? Is this a success?

Mr. Scott: I shall study with interest what NACAB has produced. The report was a small snapshot of a limited number of people who have been in touch with citizens advice bureaux. Moreover, the survey was taken in the first year of the social fund's operation, which I do not believe is typical of its operation since then. Our figures suggest that, far from 55 per cent. of applications being refused, 39 per cent. are refused. That compares favourably with the level of refusals which were 42 per cent. in the last year of the single payments scheme.

Social Security Offices (Sussex)

Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about staffing levels in local social security offices in Sussex.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Staffing levels in local social security offices in the Department are calculated using an agreed complementing system which aims to match staffing to work load. Under the system, staffing resources are allocated to regional offices where local circumstances are taken into account before these resources are distributed individually to local officers.

Mr. Rathbone: I appreciate the existence of that formula, but is my hon. Friend aware that, too often, too little attention is paid to the difficulties confronted by staff in local offices who have to introduce new benefits, use new methods, co-ordinate with local government and overcome difficulties with upgrading their offices? Can she build into the equation a greater appreciation of that, and the need to delegate to managers so that they can manage more effectively?

Mrs. Shephard: There have been difficulties at the Lewes local office during the year. Additional help in the form of casual staff, overtime, regional reserves and staff on detached duty has been made available to offset the shortfall. A new complementing system is to be introduced in April 1990. It will take account of the point raised by my hon. Friend, by being more sensitive to local office needs and taking account of local circumstances. I remind my


hon. Friend that an additional £25 million was made available during the year to help local offices with their increased workload.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Company Fraud

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Attorney-General when he next expects to meet the director of the Serious Fraud Office to discuss company fraud; and if he will make a statement.

The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I shall meet the director of the Serious Fraud Office shortly to discuss matters of departmental interest.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Attorney-General discuss with the director the Ferranti case and the fact that the directors allowed a £250 million sting to take place right under their noses? Does the Attorney-General expect us to believe that that happened without any fraud being involved?
Will the Attorney-General also discuss with the director the £4,000 that went through the checkout that resulted in a young mother and her baby finishing up in prison for six months? If the Attorney-General wants some equality in Britain, why does he not take Judge Pickles off cases involving young black women and their babies and stick him on City cases and let him loose there?

The Attorney-General: With his well-known concern not to anticipate any inquiry by jumping to a conclusion, the hon. Gentleman would not want me to anticipate the result of an investigation that has been put in train by the director of the Serious Fraud Office and the Director of Public Prosecutions into matters which, among other things, are connected with Ferranti, to which the hon. Gentleman's question relates.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is my right hon. and learned Friend at all concerned about the rather extraordinary delay in the inquiries being made by the Serious Fraud Office into matters raised by the House of Fraser report?
Is he worried about the Department of Trade and Industry's decision not to refer that unpublished report to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which means that even if serious fraud is identified and proved, there is nothing that he or anyone else can do about that company's assets?

The Attorney-General: The previous Secretary of State for Trade and Industry told the other place that he was very anxious to publish the report. I am certain that exactly the same is true of his successor. Equally, however, my hon. Friend will know of the affidavit evidence sworn by the two directors of the Serious Fraud Office and the Director of Public Prosecution to the effect that they believed that the interests of justice required that publication of the report should be held up pending investigations which are in train. The investigations have not been limited to this country but have had to take place overseas. It is my earnest hope that they will be completed shortly and a decision taken as to their publication.

Mr. Fraser: Is the Attorney-General aware that if a small-time punter provides false information to obtain a loan or a job, a charge of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception will often result? What is the difference in

principle between that and giving false information to the European Commission to get a merger clearance for BL, except that the pecuniary advantage is much greater and will he be asking the director of the Serious Fraud Office to look into that?

The Attorney-General: I am afraid that most uncharacteristically the hon. Gentleman is jumping to conclusions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has said that he and his Department will be happy to answer any questions from the Commission about the sale of the Government shareholding in the Rover group. Discussions at an official level are continuing.

Legal Aid

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Attorney-General what estimate he has made of legal aid payments in the current financial year; and how much was paid (a) five and (b) 10 years ago.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): The provision for all legal aid expenditure in the current Supply Estimates is £557 million. Five years ago expenditure was £273 million and 10 years ago it was £99 million.

Mr. Greenway: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend and his Department on that substantial increase. Can he confirm that many more poor people are covered in legal cases by that increased expenditure, and can he explain why solicitors' and lawyers' charges are so high? Why did the cost of the Aldington case come to £1 million?

The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his recognition, which deserved to be more widely understood, of the large increases in the money made available for legal aid in the past 10 years. Referring to the costs in legal aid cases, the fees paid to solicitors and lawyers vary on a scale appropriate to the weight and experience necessary for the lawyer or lawyers dealing with the case in question. The Aldington case, which was an unusual case, was a libel case and legal aid is not available for libel. However, the number of people receiving help from legal aid in the past 10 years, judged by the number of legal aid applications granted, has risen from fewer than 200,000 in 1979–80 to some 259,000 this year.

Mr. McFall: Notwithstanding the figures that the Solicitor-General has just given, compared with 10 years ago legal aid is now available to 14 million fewer people. Poor people have been discriminated against. The less money they have the less chance they have of obtaining justice. That is the situation we are facing in 1990.

The Solicitor-General: No. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's assumptions are correct, although I know where they come from. He will also have recognised and no doubt welcomed the announcement by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor providing extra availability of legal aid, particularly in personal injury cases and cases involving children and pensioners which are likely to increase the numbers by up to 10 million people.

Mr. Lawrence: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is also considerable disquiet about the


working of the scheme among the legal profession—in which of course I declare an interest—particularly about the rate of remuneration for legal aid? The delays in payment and the circumstances in which it is granted are resulting in a reduction in the number of solicitors who are willing to carry out legal aid work. Will he consider what effect that is likely to have on the Government's commitment to improved access to the legal system for poorer people in society?

The Solicitor-General: Over the past year and a half, I have been made well aware of the concerns about the matters that my hon. and learned Friend raised. He will recognise that considerable advances have been made in improving rates of remuneration. The Legal Aid Board is urgently tackling the question of promptness of payment and the other administrative matters which are important if legal aid is to be given effectively.

Security Services

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Attorney-General if he was consulted over the publication of the book relating to the security services written by Mr. John Day.

The Attorney-General: I understand that Mr. Day, in accordance with his duty, sought and obtained authority to publish his book.

Mr. Winnick: Will not Mr. John Day, who is a former senior official of M15, recommend in his book independent oversight of the security services along lines that have been repeatedly rejected by the Government? Is the Attorney-General aware that we should at least be pleased that, unlike the Wright farce, there will be no objection to Mr. Day publishing his book, and that hence there will be a considerable saving to public funds?

The Attorney-General: I have not read Mr. Day's book, but any question on the oversight of the security services should be put to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I take issue with the hon. Gentleman's description of the proceedings brought by the Government on the publication of Mr. Wright's book, "Spycatcher". I recommend that he reads a note written by Professor Birks of Oxford university in the current edition of the Law Quarterly Review, in which he describes the "battle", as he put it, to suppress the book as one in which the Government were victorious on all points of principle.

Serious Fraud Office

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Attorney-General when he next meets the director of the Serious Fraud Office, what matters he will discuss.

The Attorney-General: Matters of departmental interest, Sir.

Mr. Dalyell: I thank the Attorney-General for his most courteous letter in answer to my request that Law Officers might help hon. Members serving on the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill. Will he reflect on the position of Coopers and Lybrand and discuss with the Serious Fraud Office whether some of those who have been commissioned to write a report for the Government should become involved in a potential management

buy-out of the Crown Suppliers? Is that not terribly near to insider trading, and should not the Attorney-General's Office consider the ethics involved?

The Attorney-General: I am grateful for the kind words with which the hon. Gentleman began his supplementary question. Matters concerning insider dealing are, in the first instance, for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, whose Department is the prosecuting Department for the offence known as insider dealing. I shall consider the matter that the hon. Gentleman raised and draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Cambodia

Mr. Strang: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on multilateral and bilateral aid to Cambodia.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): Following the very useful visit of two British officials to Cambodia in December, I have decided to provide a further £1 million to multilateral agencies for their programmes inside Cambodia in 1990–91. There has been a further meeting with non-governmental organisations' representatives in London to discuss new project proposals, and I have let the Voluntary Service Overseas know that we should be happy to support the opening of a volunteer programme in Cambodia.

Mr. Strang: Can the Minister be sure that that aid will not go indirectly to the Khmer Rouge? There is growing concern among hon. Members about the escalating war in Cambodia. Do not recent statements by the non-Communist factions of the coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea make it clear that they are now fighting in collaboration with the Khmer Rouge? Is it not, therefore, high time that the Government ceased all direct aid to the non-Communist resistance if they are to comply with their declared policy of giving no aid directly or indirectly to the Khmer Rouge?

Mrs. Chalker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have been given repeated assurances by the United Nations Border Relief Organisation that British aid is not being used by the Khmer Rouge. In the light of recent events, I again sought and received confirmation of the position from UNBRO. I join the hon. Gentleman in his concern about the war and the reported happenings over the past few days. We want to see a political solution and free elections, and we are working for that with the interested parties, especially the other permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. There is such confusion at times about what the three aspects of the resistance movement are saying that I do not feel that I can respond to the hon. Gentleman's last question, but he can be in no doubt that we will not give, have not given and have no intention of giving any support to the Khmer Rouge.

Mr. Lester: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her prompt response to the report by the two diplomats who visited Phnom Penh and on the provision of the extra £1 million. I beg her to use her considerable influence with her colleagues in the Foreign Office to continue to search for


a solution to the war. There is no point in an enlarged programme for Cambodia unless the war ends. We read in today's newspapers of the bombardment of Battambang, the second largest city in Cambodia. There is a desperate need for a new road from Phnom Penh to Battambang, but there is no point in constructing it until the war ends. Will my right hon. Friend use her influence with the Security Council to achieve that end?

Mrs. Chalker: I thoroughly agree with my right hon. Friend that unless a lasting political solution is found, there is no way in which the aid, which we will willingly give, can be properly used for the benefit of the people. We will continue the efforts that we have been making in recent months.

Mrs. Clwyd: I welcome the Minister's announcement of additional aid to Cambodia. Does she recognise the widespread concern of the British people on the issue of Cambodia and Government policy? Is she aware that a petition was handed in today at the Foreign Office by Oxfam supporters and an all-party delegation which voiced their worry and asked the Government to reconsider their policy? We all agree that a political solution should be found. Can the right hon. Lady give us a categorical assurance that United Nations Border Relief Organisation food aid, to which we all contribute, is properly monitored? She has received reports from Oxfam supporters who have seen what is happening in the Khmer Rouge camps on the Thai border. Some of that food is parcelled up by people in those camps and goes directly to the military, including the Khmer Rouge, who are fighting inside Cambodia against the Cambodian Government.

Mrs. Chalker: I understand the hon. Lady's anxiety about the potential issue which was reported to me by Frank Judd of Oxfam at a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and me on 14 November. We have repeatedly gone to UNBRO for these assurances. I shall not be entirely satisfied as long as hon. Members and the British people remain concerned about this matter. I shall continue asking for assurances and do all I can to ensure that the food intended for families and ordinary people in Cambodia is not sent to the Khmer Rouge. But I am here in London—not in the camps or in Cambodia—and I cannot say hand on heart that none of the food has gone through.
I was aware of the petition that the hon. Lady, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) delivered this morning to the Foreign Office. One can have endless petitions, but a political solution is needed. With the help of United Nations Security Council members, I hope that we can bring that about as soon as possible.

Commodity Prices

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what policy in respect of commodity prices is adopted by United Kingdom representatives to the Lomé convention.

Mrs. Chalker: The Lomé convention has no direct role in commodity pricing, but helps commodity dependent African Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries through aid for improved production and diversification. ACP

states can also get help under the Stabex scheme, if they face shortfalls in export earnings from certain agricultural products, and under the Sysmin scheme if they face shortfalls in production or earnings from a list of minerals.

Mr. Corbyn: Does the Minister accept that the attitude of the EEC and of North American countries towards commodity prices has been a major contributory factor in the debt crisis in much of the world? Does she agree that the latest round of Lomé convention prices on exports from ACP countries has resulted in virtually the lowest real terms prices ever achieved by those countries? They are worried about the way in which they have been treated by the EEC. Is the right hon. Lady aware that exports from ACP countries to the European Community are at their lowest level for 25 years? Those countries and many of us are worried about the growing crisis faced by the poorer countries because the richer industrial countries are closing their markets to them and forcing them into debt and low commodity prices.

Mrs. Chalker: The answer to the hon. Gentlemen's first question is no. The answer to his second is that the Lomé convention contains no provision on commodity prices or participation in international commodity agreements. The three main areas of co-operation in commodities matters in the convention are the national indicative programmes, Stabex and Sysmin and the consultations. It is through the national indicative programmes that we seek to help countries that are heavily commodity dependent. Resources for diversification, including aid for processing, marketing, distribution and transport, are considered when individual country programmes are drawn up, and that will be happening this year.
The best way in which to help commodity-dependent countries is to enable markets to work efficiently and openly and to strengthen and restructure the countries' economies. That we are doing, not only through the EEC but directly.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: How on earth can it help to have economies working more openly when the EEC is spending £220 million every week simply destroying food and dumping it at crazy low prices, with the sole consequence of spreading death, starvation and destruction throughout the Third world? Given her responsibilily for overseas development, will the Minister make it abundantly clear that she will do everything in her power to fight against this dreadful policy of dumping food on the Third world at crazy low prices and spending lots of our taxpayers' money on dumping high-tar tobacco in places such as Africa, which in my view, is an affront to the civilised world.

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend knows that I have always been against subsidising the overproduction and dumping of food. I hope that he realises that Lome agreement EDF VII, which represents a 46 per cent. increase on EDF VI, gives the largest ever United Kingdom commitment to the Lomé countries. We are doing our best—through the EC programme and bilaterally, through the economic reform programmes—to help the countries, especially those that have been commodity dependent. Nevertheless, I agree with my hon. Friend that dumping excess provision created in Europe is no way to solve the problem.

Mr. Foulkes: But, specifically, does the Minister accept the importance of bananas to the economies of the West Indian islands, and the threat posed by the ending of the banana protocol in 1992? Does she recall the pledge of the Prime Minister in Jamaica in July 1987 to fight to protect their position? Will she say how far the Government have been able to fulfil that pledge?

Mrs. Chalker: That has nothing to do with commodity prices. The hon. Gentleman will know, however, that it was the British Government who fought hard for the banana producers during the recent negotiations on Lomé. The response that I have had from the banana producers has been one of gratitude for what Britain was able to achieve under the EDF discussions and the Lome convention.

Ambulance Dispute

Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you make it clear to me, to the House and to anyone else who may read about or watch events here that you have had no request from the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement this afternoon, at the start of the new year's parliamentary business and in the 18th week of the ambulance dispute? It is now quite clear—and not only in my area—from statements by leading doctors and medical personnel that people are dying because of the Government's pigheadedness in refusing to settle the dispute.

Mr. Speaker: I can confirm that I have no notification that there is to be a statement about that today.

BILLS PRESENTED

RAOUL WALLENBERG (MEMORIAL)

Mr. David Amess, supported by Sir Bernard Braine, Mr. Ivan Lawrence, Mr. Greville Janner, Mr. Michael Latham, Mr. David Alton, Mr. Peter Archer, Mr. David Atkinson and Mr David Sumberg, presented a Bill to enable the Secretary of State for the Environment to set aside land, not being Crown land, within the Greater London area, for the erection of a permanent memorial to Raoul Wallenberg: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 30 March and to be printed. [Bill 38.]

LICENSING

Mr. Edward Leigh presented a Bill to reform the law governing licensed premises: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 April and to be printed. [Bill 39.]

SUNDAY TRADING

Mr. James Couchman presented a Bill to reform the law governing retail trade on Sundays: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April and to be printed. [Bill 40.]

ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION (SPEED LIMITS)

Mr. John Bowis presented a Bill to amend the law relating to speed limits on roads and motorways: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 May and to be printed. [Bill 41.]

INDECENT DISPLAYS

Mr. David Sumberg presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the display of pornographic material in public places: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 4 May and to be printed. [Bill 42.]

NATIONAL SERVICE

Mr. Tony Marlow presented a Bill to enable the Secretary of State for Defence to introduce a scheme allowing young people between the ages of 16 and 21 years to volunteer to fulfil a period of national community service for a period not exceeding 18 months: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 6 July and to be printed. [Bill 43.]

PERFORMING ANIMALS

Mr. Andrew Mitchell presented a Bill to amend the law governing public exhibitions by performing animals: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 30 March and to be printed. [Bill 44.]

REFORM OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS

Mr. Graham Allen presented a Bill to abolish the House of Lords as presently composed and to provide for a new directly elected membership based on parliamentary constituencies: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 26 January and to be printed. [Bill 37.]

HORSES (PROTECTIVE HEADGEAR FOR YOUNG RIDERS)

Mr. Harry Greenway, supported by Sir Bernard Braine, Mr. Iain Mills, Mr. Stuart Randall, Miss Ann Widdecombe, Mr. Ronnie Fearn, Mr. Michael Colvin, Mr. Robin Cook, Mr. Henry Bellingham, Mr. John Carlisle, Mr. Terence L. Higgins and Mr. Gerald Bermingham, presented a Bill to secure the wearing of protective headgear by minors while horse riding; to prescribe offences and penalties; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 2 February and to be printed. [Bill 45.]

CALDEY ISLAND BILL

Ordered,
That the Caldey Island Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee— [Mr. Greg Knight.]

Orders of the Day — Pensions (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Richard Ryder): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is the first since 1975 to make changes to the statutory framework for public service superannuation provided by the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 and the Superannuation Act 1972. The present system of public service superannuation has stood the test of time well and there is no need for major changes. However, there will always be a need from time to time to make minor adaptations and alterations. We have to make such changes now to meet our Community obligations on equal treatment in occupational pensions.
The Bill also provides an opportunity to make other detailed and technical changes of a tidying-up nature. I do not think that there is anything in this largely technical and tidying-up Bill that needs to be controversial along party-political lines, and it is in that spirit that I commend it to the House.

Mr. Ian Gow: My hon. Friend has referred to our Community obligations. Can he reassure the House that the Bill is the result of a decision by Her Majesty's Government and not by any folk in Brussels?

Mr. Ryder: The Bill is the result of a direct decision taken a long time ago by the House. I assure my hon. Friend that there is nothing in it that would in any way prevent him from having the early dinner that he so richly deserves.
Until the 1970s the rules of public service superannuation schemes were generally contained in primary legislation. Public service pensions were increased to compensate for inflation on an ad hoc basis by various Pensions (Increase) Acts passed between 1920 and 1969. In 1971, the Pensions (Increase) Act provided for public service pensions to he regularly increased by statutory instrument. The Act was amended in 1972 and 1974 to lower the minimum qualifying age for pensions increase from 60 to 55 and to provide for all pensions paid to widows of scheme members to be increased. The system was adapted by the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 to allow for the introduction of the state earnings-related pension scheme and contracting out by public service pension schemes.
The Superannuation Act 1972 provided for local government, teachers and National Health Service schemes to be contained in regulations and gave the then Minister for the Civil Service the power to make, maintain and administer Civil Service pension schemes. No major changes to that Act have been made since then, but similar provisions were made for the police pension scheme by the Police Pensions Act 1976.
The Bill is essential to meet the requirements of an EC directive on equal treatment. Occupational pension schemes have traditionally operated on the old-fashioned assumption that women are dependants and that men are bread winners. That assumption is no longer valid and the

Bill provides for men and women pensioners to be treated the same regarding the increase in their pensions under the Pensions (Increase) Act.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will those working for the Property Services Agency receive the same benefits as other civil servants?

Mr. Ryder: All civil servants will be treated in the same way under this—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: When the PSA is privatised?

Mr. Ryder: Yes, under this legislation. As my hon. Friend is aware, special measures must be taken at the time of privatisation, but at the moment all public servants are treated in the same way under the terms of this legislation.
As I have said, the Bill provides for men and women pensioners to be treated in the same way with regard to the increase in their pensions under the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971. The Bill also makes other minor changes to the legislative framework for public service pensions. It does not make major amendments to the existing law, and we see no reason to make any changes now, because there is no longer any need to use primary legislation to amend the rules of most public service pension schemes. Regulations made under the relevant statutes can cover most changes that we may wish to make. We also consider the existing statutory arrangements for public service superannuation to be generally satisfactory. Of course, there will always he individual grievances about pension schemes and their administration. That is inevitable. Everyone would always like higher benefits and we should all like to pay less for them. But those are not matters that we can settle by changing the system. Public service pensioners also have the greater opportunities, which this Government have made available to occupational pensioners generally, to make personal pension provision or to pay additional voluntary contributions.
Therefore, the days of large and technically detailed superannuation Acts are, I am pleased to say, long past. However, that does not mean that there will never be a need to legislate. From time to time there will be a need to tidy up the statutory framework and this Bill fulfils that more modest ambition. It will rectify a few anomalies and minor unintended consequences which may have emerged since the early 1970s. It will also make some minor but none the less desirable adjustments to the statutory framework, including some minor consequential amendments occasioned by the wider scope for making additional voluntary contributions introduced following the Social Security Act 1986. It will also extend the powers of the Secretary of State in relation to the determination of employers' contributions in the teachers' and NHS schemes and the payment of injury benefits to teachers.
Hon. Members will have seen the explanatory and financial memorandum and the Bill itself and will, I am sure, appreciate that many of the clauses are complex and technical. I shall give detailed explanations of each clause in Committee, but today I shall concentrate my remarks on the reasons behind the clauses in the Bill and briefly sketch the effect of each clause.
Before I explain the contents of the Bill in more detail, I should make two more general points. First, the Bill does not directly alter the provisions of any pension scheme. The provisions of the schemes concerned are given in the


rules made under the Superannuation Act 1972. The second is that, although the amendments to the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 and the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 will alter the amounts by which some pensions will be increased, the changes do not affect whether a pension is paid. That is a matter governed by the rules of each pension scheme, not by the Pensions (Increase) Act.
Clause 1 is the main clause in the Bill. Public service pensions are increased in line with prices provided certain qualifying conditions are satisfied, and this clause amends those conditions. There are three separate changes. First, the clause provides for the phasing out from 1 January 1993 of a condition under which retired female scheme members with dependent children qualify for pensions increase even if they are below the normal qualifying age of 55. That concession does not apply to male pensioners and the proposed change is needed to comply with EC directive 86/378 which requires member states to introduce equal treatment for men and women into occupational pension schemes. At present, very few women qualify for pensions increase under that condition—we know of only eight in the centrally administered schemes for which data is available. However, if it were applied to men, approximately 7,000 police pensions would have to be increased, and, in addition, if analogous arrangements were introduced in the armed forces pension scheme, it is thought possible that some 50,000 armed forces pensions would have to be increased.
The Government do not consider that it would be appropriate to make a major extension of that kind to the conditions for pensions increase, which would result in the pensions paid to those who retire at comparatively young ages and can enjoy second careers being increased. Equal treatment for both sexes can therefore be secured only by repealing the relevant provision of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971. The Bill does that, but ensures that the accrued rights relating to service rendered before 1 January 1993 of the very few current and future female pensioners who benefit from this provision are fully protected.
Second, the clause provides for all pensions paid to survivors of scheme members to he increased in line with prices. At present, widows' and children's pensions are increased, but pensions paid to widowers and other adult dependants are increased only if the survivor is over 55 or physically or mentally incapacitated or, if a woman, has a dependent child. Most public service schemes have now aligned their rules on widowers' pensions with their rules on widows' pensions, and it is appropriate, therefore, that widowers' pensions should now be increased under the same conditions that apply to widows' pensions. It is possible also in some public service schemes for pensions to be paid to adult dependants who are not widows or widowers of scheme members if certain conditions are satisfied, or if the scheme member surrenders part of his or her pension. There are very few pensions in these categories and most are already increased because of the pensioner's age or state of health. We think that it is appropriate therefore to simplify the conditions for pensions increase and to introduce equal treatment by providing for all those pensions to be increased.
I emphasise that, in practice, these provisions affect very few women and men receiving, or expecting to receive, public service pensions. No one will lose any

accrued rights. There is little extension of existing provisions. In that sense, it represents a practical, cost-effective and reasonable response to the problem of equal treatment and the requirements of the EC directive to which I referred.
Third, two minor extensions have been made to the conditions under which injury benefits paid by pension schemes are increased. In practice, public service pension schemes increase almost all injury benefits, even though the beneficiary may not be regarded as having finally retired on ill-health grounds or as being completely incapacitated. This clause makes sure that such payments of pensions increase in those cases are covered by the Pensions (Increase) Act.
Clauses 2, 3 and 10 make changes to the Acts to rectify some problems that have emerged since the early 1970s. For example, clause 2 amends the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 to bring the law on two small, technical aspects of pensions increase into line with the practice followed by public service pension schemes since 1965. Clause 3 amends the Pensions (Increase) Act to end a provision that gives rise to extremely small payments to pensioners but with a disproportionate administrative burden for the Department concerned.
Clause 10 amends part of the Superannuation Act 1972 to clarify the protection given to re-employed scheme members if changes that are potentially detrimental to them are made to regulations for local government, teachers and NHS schemes.
Clause 4 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations for teachers' and NHS schemes under which the costs of pensions increase may be recovered from employers through the contributions they already pay towards the cost of basic benefits. If and when the necessary regulations are made, the Government Actuary will advise on the appropriate contribution rates for employers. Employees' contributions will not be affected.
Clause 5 amends a provision in the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 under which some widows have part of their pension indexed by both the public service pensions scheme and by SERPS.
Clauses 7, 8 and 9 make some minor technical amendments connected with the wider scope for making additional voluntary contributions introduced following the Social Security Act 1986. Clause 7 makes sure that money purchase benefits arising from additional voluntary contributions paid by scheme members are not indexed by public service pension schemes. Clause 8 relieves certain schemes of a responsibility to pay annuities purchased by scheme members where the scheme member himself has the chosen the company that will provide the annuity. Clause 9 brings money purchase pension schemes for civil servants within the scope of the existing arrangements for agreeing amendments to Civil Service pension schemes that may adversely affect the accrued rights of scheme members or pensioners.
Clause 11 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations under which injury benefits can be paid to teachers by their employers. At present, these benefits can be paid only by the Secretary of State. It is more appropriate for those benefits to be paid by the employer than the pension scheme. This clause makes that possible, and allows existing arrangements made by some local education authorities to continue until any regulations are made.
The House will see from this brief description of the Bill that it is almost wholly concerned with making minor, largely technical, adjustments to the existing legislative framework governing public service pension schemes. There are no substantial changes to that framework which has stood the test of time well. This short, modest but useful Bill will ensure that the relevant Acts can continue to provide sound framework for public service pension schemes in future years. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Paul Flynn: The Bill appears to be modest and non-controversial, hut on close examination it is seen to contain clear signposts of the Government's rather wayward policy on pensions. Unfortunately, all the signposts point backwards. Bills such as this are rare, but they give the House a chance to examine the drift of Government policy.
Unfortunately the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) is no longer in his place. The rather convoluted answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about whether we were acting as a result of a European directive should have been that we are acting as a result of action from Europe. That is because the European Community which was once denounced as a rich man's club is now laying down minimum standards of fairness and justice and, sad to say, Britain is having difficulty keeping up with those. The Bill is very much part of that process.
Public service pensions, and especially Civil Service pensions, have blazed a trail for all other pensioners. With our customary magnanimity I welcome the beneficial parts of the Bill and thank Ministers for the unusual generosity that they displayed and the way that they co-operated during work on the Bill. There were special difficulties because work on it spanned the Christmas recess.
Clause 1 has both negative and positive aspects. The positive proposition is the extension of increases to widowers' pensions. At first sight that looks generous but that is not a trait that we instantly associate with the Government. The matter that is being tackled has been the subject of some controversy in the House. Early-day motion 600 put down on 15 March 1989 was signed by 121 hon. Members including six Conservative Members and asked for just such a reform.
The Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association contacted me today expressing some concern. Although that trade union has a membership of more than 130,000 and has waged a vigorous campaign on the issue, the only information that it had about the change was received today. It was only because of the wonders of the fax machine that I have had documents from the association on this matter. The association says that its formal consultative group, the teachers' superannuation working party, which is maintained by the Government, has not considered the Bill's proposals. The association tells me that as far as it can tell none of the trade unions represented on the working party has been consulted about the Bill or notified about its contents. Perhaps we shall hear more about that later in the debate.
Since April 1988 all contracted-out schemes have been obliged to provide a guaranteed minimum pension for widowers as well as widows. The Civil Service scheme previously provided widows' pensions as an optional extra for women civil servants, and for that an extra 1·5 per cent. contribution was paid. From April 1988 the 1·5 per cent.

contribution was made compulsory for men and women. They have been paying for the advantage that has been offered today for some considerable time. The Government have no alternative but to give to widowers the same pension increases that widows receive.
The negative aspect of the Bill has alarming repercussions. It is the abolition of pension increases for retired women under the age of 55 with dependent children. In the Civil Service superannuation scheme the minimum pension age is now 50. The only circumstances in which a woman would retire under the age of 55, other than on medical grounds—where pension increases are payable regardless of age—are redundancy, approved early retirement or retirement on an actuarially reduced pension. Some mothers under the age of 50 with dependent children may draw pensions from other public sector schemes with a lower pensionable age, such as the police scheme, but they are likely to be few in number. The Minister confirmed part of that today.
The numbers involved are low, but if that is so, why bother to deprive people of the pension increases that they now enjoy? The Government's excuse is that the increases discriminate against men. That is one of the signposts in the Bill. More major decisions will have to be made in future to comply with the progressive European directive —and future directives—which says that we cannot discriminate between men and women. An enormous discrepancy which the Government must tackle before long is the age at which men and women can draw a state pension. At present there is discrimination because for women it is 60 and for men it is 65.
It seems that the Government's reaction to the call for an end to discrimination is, not to spread the advantages, but to take advantages away from one sex so that both sexes are discriminated against. In their view, that is a reasonable way to achieve discrimination. However, the Government are discriminating down rather than spreading the advantages.
To extend pension increases to fathers under the age of 55 would achieve equal treatment and would be a reasonable step to take. We suggest that the Government should do that instead of taking the increases away from mothers. The cost would be relatively small because at 55 fathers already qualify for a pension at the higher rate. That would be reached by annual increases.
In principle there is no case for paying unindexed pensions to men or women of any age without children. There is room for argument about the age at which a pension should be payable and under what conditions. However, once it has been decided that someone is entitled to a pension, it makes no sense to allow that pension to be eroded by inflation. Either the person needs the pension or he does not. If he does, he needs to have its real value preserved.
The Bill is part of a long and, in most aspects, honourable history of providing decent pensions for civil servants. The present Civil Service scheme dates back to the Superannuation Act 1859. Richard Titmuss wrote 25 years ago:
The civil servants were the first large organised group of workers to obtain security in their old age. The foundation of the system firmly settled by the Act of 1859, remains today: the governing principles applied more generously with the passage of time, still rule authoritatively. In 1963, the system was still a model and a goal for the vast majority of British workers.


In 1990 that still remains true. Much progress has been made in pension provision for other occupational groups. The public service as a whole has attained pension rights comparable to the Civil Service. Increasingly, occupational pension schemes in the private sector have been modelled on Civil Service advantages, with pensions based on individual earnings in the final year or the years before retirement. Where they have lagged behind is in inflation-proofing pensions and in shielding rights for people who change jobs. Sadly millions of people are still exposed and vulnerable without the strength of an occupational scheme behind them. They include the 3·5 million people who have been induced by a heavy cocktail of bribery and misleading propaganda to take out the so-called personal pension schemes. They may well rue that decision if they stay in the schemes for longer than five years.
The greatest leap forward to the goal described by Titmuss in 1964 for securing pensions for the majority of workers comparable to those in the Civil Service was taken in 1975 when the then Labour Government's Social Security Pensions Act introduced the state earnings-related pension scheme. The scheme was based on a plan which was first published in 1957, and Titmuss was one of the authors. Its inspiration was firmly rooted in the Civil Service scheme, which had been created a century earlier and had been tried and proved.
The comparison with Europe still prevailed. Most of our European partners now have schemes that are based on the principle that pensions should be related to previous earnings. That is one of the main reasons why our pensions lag so pathetically behind those in the rest of Europe. British pensioners still rely on a flat-rate pension for the bulk of their state pension.
The Social Security Pensions Act 1975 was a pensions revolution. It transformed the retirement prospects of the great majority of the working population. It was a considerable achievement to confer on half the working population—it was previously not covered—new pension rights comparable to final salary occupational schemes. As important but not so widely recognised was the secondary achievement of the 1975 legislation, and that was to confront the cumulative destruction caused by inflation of pension values. Again, the model was the public sector.
The Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 had the effect that public sector pensions were automatically inflation proofed. The 1975 Act protected state earnings-related pensions from the ravages of inflation and the State undertook the inflation-proofing of the guaranteed minimum pension by contracted-out occupational schemes. Thus the pensions of millions in the private sector were brought nearer to the higher standards set by the public sector. The Bill is important for the changes in the pension rights that are directly affected by it, and the reverberations will spread wider to all provisions for retirement. That is why the Opposition are convinced that it is entirely appropriate that a spokesperson on social security should participate in the debate.
Clause 7 excludes money-purchase benefits earned by additional voluntary contributions from the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971. A money-purchase pension is the annuity that can be brought from the amount of money that is available at pension age from the

approved contributions plus investment income. In theory, on reaching pension age a person can choose to buy an index-linked annuity, but it is unlikely that many people will do so. That is because an unindexed annuity will have a much higher initial value.
Encouraging people to pay into money-purchase schemes, which is favoured strongly by the Government, is likely to result in payments of pensions that are fixed in cash terms with no protection from inflation. That is true of personal pension schemes too, except where there is a requirement to provide annuities rising by 3 per cent. a year. Even that applies only to annuities purchased that meet the minimum contribution that is required for contracting out. It would not be sensible to object to clause 7, but it illustrates a significant problem that will inevitably arise again and again from the proliferation of money-purchase schemes under which the Government are now acting. A complexity has been introduced into pension schemes that will require a great deal more legislation in future.
There has been a remarkable change in the indexation of pensions in the past decade. In the early days of the Thatcher Government it was known that the Prime Minister thought of the Civil Service as a grossly over privileged group, and that the privilege that the right hon. Lady begrudged more than any other was the right of Civil Servants to index-linked, inflation-proofed pensions. The repeal of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 was high on her hit list. Then the emphasis changed suddenly from abolishing indexation to asking civil servants to pay for it.
Exactly 10 years ago today, on 8 January, The Guardian published an article by Ian Aitken under the headline,
Search for way to end pension-inflation linking may be dropped".
The lady was for turning. The story confirmed that the Prime Minister wanted to end index linking and social benefits in general, especially for public services. Ian Aitken wrote:
Ministers now seem to be agreed that an arbitrary cut off in inflation proofed pensions would have wide effects throughout the public services and in some cases would involve a breach of contract.
Right hon. and hon. Members may recall that in February 1981, Sir Bernard Scott's committee dealt a bitter blow to the Prime Minister's plans when he found that the pensions deductions made from civil servants' wages were nearly twice those made from the earnings of employees in the private sector, so civil servants were enjoying no bargain whatsoever. More importantly, Sir Bernard not only made the point that index-linked pensions were not an indefensible privilege to the public sector—far from it—but that they should be extended to the population as a whole. The committee reported:
It is highly desirable as a social objective that the standard of living of those in retirement should be protected. This is clearly recognised in countries like France and West Germany, where the benefits enjoyed by pensioners are superior to those of this country and the benefits of index linking extend alike to both public and private sectors. In the United Kingdom, the full cost of protecting pensioners has yet to be recognised and fully shouldered during working life. We believe that there may be helpful lessons to be drawn from our work for the private sector pensions and their financing, as well as for the public sector.
Nothing has changed. The report makes two crucial points on European practice and on index linking that are intimately germane to the Bill. How are we doing nine years later?
It is notoriously difficult fairly to compare pensions in different countries, but the European Commission recently made a brave attempt at doing so. It took as a standard the amount paid to a new pensioner who had worked for an average wage in manufacturing industry. Two different methods of comparison were used. I have urged the Government to adopt them both, but so far they have declined. The first method is to convert the cash amount into ecus by using a standard rate of exchange known as the purchasing power standard, which takes full account of the cost of living in each country. The pension is thus related to the value of purchases that can be made locally.
Not surprisingly, and as was the case nine years ago, the United Kingdom came out badly by comparison. The British pension of £53 is almost half the £104 paid in Luxembourg and barely half the £101 paid in the Netherlands. Britain is only beaten into bottom place by Ireland, with £43. I must be fair and give details also of the Commission's second comparison, which takes the pension as an average of manufacturing industry earnings in each country, after taking account of tax. That system is known as net replacement ratio, and it uses the figure of 100 to represent average manufacturing earnings.
The best countries pay pensions of nearly 90 per cent. of average earnings, while the United Kingdom and Ireland pay less than half of pre-retirement earnings, with a pension of 46 per cent. It seems extraordinary that the neglect of the basic pension in particular should continue.
The index linking of state pensions introduced in the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 was once challenged, but that provision managed to survive. It would not have done so had the proposals in the June 1985 Green Paper, "The Reform of Social Security—Programme for Action" been implemented. It was the Government's clear intention to abolish SERPS, and with it the inflation-proofing mechanism, but their nerve again failed them. The scheme was savagely cut by the Social Security Act 1985, but the inflation-proofing provision remained intact. Contracted-out schemes must now provide inflation proofing of the guaranteed minimum pension up to 3 per cent., instead of the state scheme doing that for them. The state scheme still makes provision above that level.
The Government's newly found enthusiasm for index linking—provided that someone else bears the cost—is about to bear fruit in the next social security Bill, which will require limited indexation of occupational schemes above the guaranteed minimum pension level—but apparently, only when a scheme is about to be wound up.
The first Civil Service pension was granted in 1684 to Martin Horsham, a land waiter in the Port of London, who, in the memorable words of the Treasury Warrant at the time, was paid it because he was:
so much indisposed by a great melancholy that he is at present unfit for business".
There is little in the Bill or the Government's pension policy that would have lifted Martin Horsham's melancholy and, sadly, there is much that would have deepened it.
This is a mean-spirited, patch and prop Bill. In the past, Britain has led the world to liberate retired people from the anxiety of deep poverty. Europe is now leading Britain, coaxing and coercing the Government out of their obsolete fixations. The Bill continues a Government pension policy that is wasteful, confused and mean.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I have to declare a financial interest in the Bill as I am a beneficiary of the arrangements that it makes for public service pensions by virtue of service in the colonial administration of Nigeria.
I welcome the Bill. We should all support the details of the Bill, and I was distressed to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), whose judgment is usually quite sound, appear to cast some doubt on the merits of the Bill because some of its proposals have apparently been prompted by events within the European Community. If that is so, it is a jolly good thing.
Women's equality is not a subject on which I normally speak at great length, or with enthusiasm, because women may be equal but they are also different. However, there can be no doubt that the small amendments proposed in the Bill are good ones for women and I am surprised that they have not been made before. They are mostly self-evident and logical, because the pound paid by a woman civil servant is as good as the pound paid by a man during their service, and there seems to be no reason for discrimination between the sexes and in that respect the proposals in the Bill are to be commended.
Apart from amending injustices and anomalies and improving pensions for public officers, there is a need for the Bill and for all pension arrangements to be index linked due to inflation—the evil and the scourge of modern times. Inflation distorts economies and causes great misery and cruelty, and it should remain the enemy of all Governments. If we can beat inflation, we shall not need to introduce measures constantly to reappraise the value of pensions to people who have earned what they are paid at the end of their service in a pension because of the contributions that they have made or that have been notionally made for them during their service. The Government should bear in mind that the financial burden of the Bill can be eased by the extent to which they are successful with their anti-inflation policy.
A number of other more detailed matters come to mind when we discuss public service pensions. Many British citizens, resident in Britain, are pensioners of a public service that is, in fact if not in law, under the Government of the United Kingdom. For example, the pension rights of people who served in the colonial service under the Government of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland were secured on the basis that employers' contributions would be made by the Governments concerned—successor Governments, where transfers have taken place. The value of such pensions was therefore tied to agreements between Governments, which has meant in practice that many former British civil servants serving in our overseas territories must live on a pittance. The value of their pensions has not benefited from inclusion in the general arrangements covered by the Bill, because technically their employer was not the United Kingdom Government but the result of arrangements between the United Kingdom and other countries—or for other similar reasons.
To their credit, the Government have recently eased the problem concerning the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland by making an ex gratia payment into the fund, which has enabled pensions to be increased. That, however, is merely a stopgap measure, welcome though it


was at the time, and I hope that it will eventually be replaced by a provision consistent with the spirit of the Bill.
Civil servants in Hong Kong are among those with similar problems. The colonial or overseas Government —not the United Kingdom Government—are bound to a pension obligation unless an arrangement has been made between the two Governments for the money to be transferred to the United Kingdom Treasury. The United Kingdom and Nigerian Governments reached such an arrangement for my pension, but, as the Hong Kong Administration are within the British colonial empire, pension arrangements are still governed by Hong Kong regulations.
The main difficulty is that the value of Hong Kong pensions is established by the prevailing exchange rate, and the Hong Kong dollar is inclined to fluctuate. At present it is notoriously subject to the influence of world events, and to other matters that have nothing to do with the interests of the people involved. Such influences do nothing to assure those people that they will receive an appropriate retirement income, whether or not they have already retired. We want them to stay in Hong Kong, but there is still the problem of their pensions.
Expatriate staff of the Hong Kong Administration who are on pensionable establishment will in due course retire, and their pensions will be determined by the value of the Hong Kong dollar. Surely the United Kingdom Government have a moral obligation to ensure that those people do not suffer because of the instability of future foreign exchange conditions, but are guaranteed the full value of their pensions—uprated by arrangements in the legislation referred to in the Bill—so that they need not fear the suffering experienced by other colonial service pensioners in, for instance, the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
Part of our imperial responsibility is still the obligation to protect those who have served the Crown, often in an inclement climate and unhealthy circumstances. The conditions of people who maintained and controlled the government of the empire and our remaining colonies should not be prejudiced by the fact that their service was notionally directed towards a Government separate from the United Kingdom. I appreciate that this precise point is not strictly covered by the Bill, but I am sure that the Minister is well aware of it and that he will ensure that those who are responsible for taking this overview of our obligations to all British public servants abroad will take their cases into account so that this injustice is remedied.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I endorse everything said by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). The Government ought to examine carefully the provisions that have been made for former colonial servants of Her Majesty's Government. The hon. Gentleman may be right that the long and short titles of the Bill will make it difficult for the Standing Committee to consider amendments covering that point, but I hope that the Government will deal with the plight of former Crown servants. The hon. Gentleman has made a valuable contribution to the debate.
I am worried about the way in which pensions legislation in general is enacted by the House. The explanatory and financial memorandum refers to the Bill rectifying
certain anomalies and unintended consequences
in previous legislation. The parliamentary draftsmen are doing no service to public servants who are in receipt of public service pensions by drafting legislation that is technically flawed and which, to lay persons, is completely unintelligible.
I hope that the Government will consolidate some of the pensions legislation. I recognise that a different series of Acts governs public service pensions. They are quite distinct from the Acts that apply to most pensions, but there is an overlap between the Treasury's responsibility for public service pensions and the Department of Social Security's responsibility for other pensions.
Has any consideration been given to the systematic and cohesive consolidation of all the statutes relating to pensions in all their different aspects? It would then be easier to understand the ramifications of the legislation, some of which has been in place since public service pensions were first given in the year 1684, as the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) has told us.
The hon. Gentleman also made a valuable point when he suggested that the House should examine carefully how the Government are seeking to cope with requests from the European Community, or anyone else, for a pensions system that would eliminate discrimination between males and females. Such a move would be welcomed. It is long overdue.
The Government pick and choose between benefits. Some they are prepared to level up, while others they level down. They are breaking the spirit of European Community directives that place an obligation on member states to end discrimination. By and large, the Government are levelling down all the time. I speak as a humble Scots solicitor. I am not an expert in pensions legislation. It can be argued that what I have described breaches the spirit of the directive and could be challengeable through the European legal system. The Government must make it clear what principles they will adopt when they approach the problems that they will experience with ending discrimination between males and females.
My overall impression, on skimming through the Bill, is that the Treasury has done a quick trawl to see where it can save the odd bob or two. The Minister shakes his head. I am more sceptical than he obviously is. Some of these provisions will save money. With his usual eloquence and competence, the Minister skipped over the fact that it was mooted that the police, fire and armed services should receive additional benefits. The idea was given careful consideration, but the decision went against them. Nevertheless, the sum involved must also be weighed in the balance.
The pensions industry has studied the Bill. I give it a cautious welcome. On balance, it improves things. However, the Government can be accused of looking for quick ways to save the odd buck, and the House should examine that carefully before giving it a Second Reading.
As I have already said, there is confusion about pensions legislation. Clause 2 contains quite a substantial element of retrospection. There may be reasons or cases that justify retrospection in some circumstances, but the


Minister did not mention them. Any retrospective legislation, especially if it affects pensions, should not be accepted casually.
I shall put my Scots solicitor's hat back on and draw attention to clause 2(5). It amends the Pensions (Increase) Act 1965, but that Act was repealed by the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971. That is a very good trick if it can be done, but I think that it is an example of technical incompetence. I am sure that it will interest the hon. Member for Orpington, who is a distinguished observer of these matters. No doubt the Treasury has more solicitors than I could muster on this Bench. Indeed, I can muster the support of only my party leader—but that is quite considerable support, although perhaps not on pensions legislation. He is neither a Scot nor a solicitor. I am worried about slipping through legislation that purports to amendment an Act which was repealed yonks ago. We should have a word about that from the Minister.
Clauses 3, 5 and 7 are a bit petty, but clauses 5 and 7 make sensible changes. Although I have accused the Treasury of trying to save money, I must observe that the changes in clauses 5 and 7 are justified because the double benefits that were previously available were overgenerous.
It is all very well for the Minister to say that the Bill is tidying up various pieces of legislation and that it is all minor and technical. Given enough time—preferably not during the Christmas recess which included Hogmanay which is a much more important festival north of the border—and given the opportunity in Standing Committee I could certainly provide a whole list of minor or consequential amendments that will certainly cost the Treasury money. I shall suggest one now.
I am the joint secretary and treasurer of the all-party committee on pensioners, and the most obvious case that has come to my attention concerns the changes to the Civil Service pension in 1978. Civil Service widows' pensions were not made payable to widows of post-retirement marriages until the pensions legislation of 1978. That gives rise to an anomaly because widows of post-retirement marriages after 1978 are now treated much more generously than those who were widowed before then. I cannot believe that the Treasury objects to that on financial grounds because it must cost a relatively tiny sum compared with some of the other savings being made in other parts of the Bill. That is a clear example of another anomaly which could have been tidied up in the Bill. It would have had a substantial effect and removed an important anomaly which has been causing quite legitimate and justified concern among those who observe the comings and goings of the Civil Service pension funds and schemes.
I said earlier that the hon. Member for Orpington had made a valuable contribution concerning colonial pensions. Again through the all-party committee on pensioners I have received representations from a host of different organisations. On the last day of last year I received one from the consultative committee of the Kenya local authorities superannuation fund again complaining about matters such as those raised by the hon. Member for Orpington. Technically, they may not be capable of rectification under the short title of the Bill, but given a bit of good will from the Government and a slightly longer short title, the Bill could have addressed some of those problems. They would have required some subvention from central Government funds into certain outstanding funds which are leaving former colonial servants in dire

financial circumstances. It is a missed opportunity. Small items such as that make it impossible for the Minister to say that the Bill is simply a minor and technical matter.
The Bill embraces some important issues, and the Minister will have to convince the House of some of the financial aspects and consequences of the provisions of the Bill before I shall be entirely comfortable with it. However, I shall certainly recommend to my colleagues that on balance the Bill deserves a Second Reading.

Mr. Ian McCartney: I wish to take part in this short debate mainly to voice my concern that sometimes the House passes legislation such as this late in the evening or, as on this occasion, soon after the holidays without hon. Members understanding the full significance of the Government's intention in future years to use the legislation as a principle. I wish to discuss the principle of discrimination. I seek assurances about the Government's intentions, whether in future it will be used for levelling down rather than levelling up and whether they attach importance to the Bill in respect of pension matters before the European Commission.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) said that by clause 1(2)(b) the Government seek to amend a provision that currently discriminates against men who retire before the age of 55 on grounds other than ill health but who cannot take advantage of the specific arrangements by which women with dependants can retire before the age of 55 on grounds other than ill health. The Government aim to end discrimination against male contributors to the fund, but in so doing women's rights will be removed.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West, the Minister attempted to use the numbers game in respect of the number of women who currently benefit, and said that the figure is derisory. He gave a more important answer in relation to the number of men who could qualify if the Government ended discrimination more positively by allowing equal pension entitlement for men and women.
The Minister may argue that in calculating for the fire and police services and other employees tens of thousands of men may benefit, but that raises an issue of principle in relation to pension entitlement. Far too often when the Government have been faced with an issue of discrimination from the European Community they have chosen to remove the rights of one group to end discrimination against another.
I signed early-day motion 88, which argued for the ending of discrimination against men who reach retirement age at 65, whereas women benefit at 60. Those who have been involved in ending that discrimination foresee under this legislation the possibility of the Government establishing the principle of levelling down by removing the rights of women rather than legislating for a universal pension age for men and women. That is a controversial matter within the European Community, and at some stage the House will return to it. The debate is continuing not only here but outside, and the Government are receiving advice from pension actuaries and others about amendments that the European Community may force on them at a later stage. Although


the amendments might affect few women, they could have significant repercussions on the debate on pension entitlement in future years.
As I understand it, those in the pensions business who currently advise the Government say that a reduction in the male pension age to 60 would be expensive and would lead to a significant reduction in the net contribution. Therefore, rather than reduce the pension age for men, over stages the Government will increase it for women to 65. The basic pension and the state earnings-related pension scheme will be available to women aged between 60 and 65, and those retiring at 60 will receive the equivalent of two thirds of the full state pension. Women will lose their current pension entitlement at 60. Labour Members believe that to legislate for the worst elements of a scheme but to remove its best elements is no way to end discrimination between men and women.
The principle embodied in clause 1(2)(b) will put pressure on the Government to introduce a phased arrangement under which women's entitlement to full pension at 60 will be obliterated. Women who are currently aged about 50 will retain their entitlement to full pension at 60, but those aged between 40 and 50 will see their entitlement to a full pension changed to between 61 and 64. Women under 40 years of age will have to wait until they are 65 before getting a full state pension. That means of ending so-called discrimination is unacceptable.
Legislation covering care in the community is going through the House. More than 90 per cent. of those who care in the community are women who, voluntarily or involuntarily, give up their employment at an early age to look after an aged or severely disabled relative. It is ironic —indeed, I can find no precedent—that the House is considering legislation that will make it easier for people to care for others but a clause in this Bill will prevent women from retiring before they are 55 to look after a dependent relative and they will lose the benefits that they are currently enjoying.
The House would not expect this or any other Government to allow such discrimination. Over the coming decades, a growing number of women will be asked to take on the job of caring in the community. They will apply to their employers to retire before they reach 55, not on medical grounds involving themselves but on medical grounds relating to a dependent husband, mother or father or child. Changes in medical techniques mean that children are living beyond their teenage years with severe physical and mental disabilities.
The Minister may believe that this is a small, insignificant group of women. Legislation must take account not only of what is happening now but of what will happen in 10, 20 or 30 years. One of the damning features of clause 1 is that it fails to recognise changing trends and the needs of people who will be required to care for their elderly and dependent relatives.
I have spoken in the House on behalf of fire authorities, as their honorary parliamentary adviser. Because of the nature of fire fighters' work, a significant number would benefit from an early retirement age, but restrictions imposed under current legislation mean that they cannot. They would have liked an amendment to allow them the same rights as women who retire below the age of 55. Not

only are these fire fighters not included in the Bill but—we never expected this—women who are now covered by legislation will be excluded.
Although there will not be a Division on the Bill, the House must return to the long-term fundamental issues of equal opportunities and pensions. The Opposition and a significant number of Conservative Members will not accept legislation that operates on the spurious ground that removing the rights of one group of pensioners whether male or female, is equalised by the ending of discrimination against another group. That is no way to proceed with legislation. I shall not seek to divide the House—I see that you are smiling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and thinking, "Thank God for that"—but I am not satisfied with the legislation.

Mr. Ryder: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to speak again. I am grateful to hon. Members for the attention and interest that they have shown in this largely detailed and technical Bill, but I should like to stress again that it is a modest Bill and has modest scope. It amends the statutory framework in which the regulations for public service pension schemes are made. Apart from some adjustments at the margin to the law prescribing the index linking of public service pensions, the Bill does not directly alter the rules of any pension scheme. Changes to these rules will continue to be made in the usual ways, which are prescribed in the Superannuation Act 1972.
There can be no fear that the Bill will seriously affect the pensions of those who have retired after many years of public service. I assure the House that there is no cause for such concern. The proposed changes to the qualifying conditions for pension increases—clause 1—will be introduced in a way that fully protects the accrued rights of serving public servants and those already retired. The double indexation of part of the pensions paid to surviving spouses will be phased out gradually and only the widows and widowers of scheme members not yet retired will lose this anomalous and unintended benefit. That is covered by clause 5. The ending of the extremely small payments of pensions increase on additional lump sums will be introduced for future retirements only, and this is covered by clause 3.
I assure the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) that we are not alone in work of this kind. Other European countries are affected by the 1986 directive. I know that that will be of interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). The hon. Member for Newport, West asked whether there had been consultation with various interest groups. I believe that all interest groups support the measures in the Bill, but if any have suggestions to improve it, let us have a look at them.
I understand that the Department of Education and Science is holding discussions with teachers' representatives all the time and that a joint working party on pensions is operating now. The hon. Members for Newport, West and for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) asked why we did not "level-up" pension increases for retired male scheme members so that those under 55 with dependent children could receive pensions increase. As the hon. Gentlemen know, this would be a costly improvement to superannuation benefits for which either employers or employees would have to pay. During my


opening speech I set out details of how many people would be affected one way or the other. If we went down the road advocated by the hon. Members for Newport, West and for Makerfield, an estimated 7,000 retired policemen and fire fighters would be affected and it has been said that, on a conservative estimate, about 50,000 retired service personnel would benefit if payments were also made in armed forces schemes. The ultimate cost would be more than £100 million a year—for the police about £14 million and for the armed forces about £100 million.

Mr. McCartney: Surely, in considering whether to amend the legislation, the principle should be whether the current position of women is right. We should ask whether this is a proper aspect to include in pension provisions. The Opposition say yes, in principle. We should therefore consider how it can be applied to all members of the scheme. The Minister has implied that if amendments caused a huge influx in the number of people included in the scheme, the Government might have difficulty in finding the resources needed. The Government should turn to the second, more feasible option and introduce a sheme of phasing in arrangements rather than phasing out the current arrangements for women.

Mr. Ryder: I explained earlier why we have drafted the Bill along these lines. The hon. Gentleman will know that, for the reasons that I gave then, we believe that this is the right course. As I said, we understand that very few people will be affected. We know of only eight teachers who will be affected by the provision, although there may be more.
I referred to the initial cost of taking the course that the hon. Gentleman advocates, which is to level up. I gave that cost as over £1 million a year, and I shall be happy to supply him with the details of that figure if he wishes.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) knows that any proposal to phase in pensions increase for male pensioners under 55 with dependent children would be equally vulnerable to a challenge that it did not meet the requirements of EC directive 86/378, to which I referred in my opening remarks.
The hon. Member for Newport, West answered his own question about clause 7. An additional voluntary contribution can buy an index-linked annuity if the individual so chooses. The Government support the personal pension developments but also wish to continue good occupational pension schemes, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) has for several years campaigned assiduously for the concession of an additional pension for war service of former colonial expatriate civil servants. I have followed his campaign with interest for longer than the six months for which I have held my present position.
The benefits and qualifying conditions of the colonial scheme have been modelled on those of the United Kingdom public service schemes—in particular, the provisions applying to home civil servants. There can be no special relaxation of the rules for colonial Civil Service pensioners.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington also drew the attention of the House to arrangements in Hong Kong. Ministers have said, as he may know, that we do not rule out the possibility of public officers' agreements in due course, although it is not clear whether, in the unique circumstances of Hong Kong, there may be other ways of

achieving these ends. It may help if I explain that as other former colonies went into independence, the question of sterling safeguards was settled much closer to the time of constitutional change. This question is one of the matters that the Government are keeping under careful review in consultation with the Hong Kong Government. On present evidence, we are not persuaded that the current arrangements work to the disadvantage of Hong Kong pensioners.
Ministers have stated that the Government fully recognise the particular concern of HMOCS officers in Hong Kong and will continue to keep their interests in mind in the years leading up to 1997. Particular considerations apply in respect of Hong Kong—for example, guarantees under the joint declaration that expatriates may continue to serve after 1997. No firm decisions have yet been made on special measures, such as compensation, that might be appropriate in Hong Kong's unique circumstances.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire asked about consolidation. I agree that simplicity and comprehensibility are important in any pension schemes and underlying legislation. There are already some important consolidation measures on the statute book—for example, the Superannuation Act 1972 of which he may have even closer knowledge than I. We need to be careful that attempts to produce statutes of near-universal coverage do not make the position more complicated. I am not convinced that the time of the House would be well spent on further pensions consolidation at present. As I have said, the Bill represents a relatively simple and straightforward correction of a few minor anomalies in existing legislation.
With his customary acuteness, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire highlighted clause 2. He is quite right that the clause is retrospective. It aligns the law with the practice of schemes. It brings the law into line with what it was thought and intended to be. I stress, emphasise and underline that no pensioner will lose out as a result of clause 2.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire wondered whether the position of police and fire personnel had been looked into. The answer is yes, and no anomalies in the way in which legislation affected them were identified.
If I have not covered any detailed points, I shall be happy to write to hon. Members or to talk to them before the Bill progresses further.

Mr. McCartney: Some Government Departments are considering setting up agencies to deal with their work. Will any changes have to be made in the legislation in respect of civil servants who, from this year, may be working for agencies, which although attached to the Civil Service are technically outside it?

Mr. Ryder: Not as far as I know. All public servants are treated the same under the Bill, whoever they work for and whatever the circumstances in which they work. I shall certainly let the hon. Gentleman know if I am wrong in that judgment.
As I explained in opening, the Bill is evolutionary rather than revolutionary. It is intended not to replace a system that has worked well for nearly 20 years but to adapt and improve it to meet the needs of the 1990s in a way that is fair to pensioners and current employees. Against that


background, I commend the Bill to the House. I thank those hon. Members who have taken part in the debate— especially my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington, who has given the Bill his support, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, who spoke on behalf of the Liberal party, and the hon. Member for Makerfield. If any points need to be clarified, I shall be happy to clarify them during the next few days.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Committee tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — PENSIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Pensions (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill ("the Act") it is expedient to authorise the following—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any increase in the cost of providing increases under or by virtue of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 in official pensions and in other pensions within the meaning of that Act;
(b) any increase in the cost of providing pensions, allowances and gratuities payable under section 1, 7, 9 or 10 of the Superannuation Act 1972;
(c) any increase in the sums payable under any other enactment which is attributable to increased expenditure by any authority in consequence of—

(i) any such increase as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) above;
(ii) any provisions of the Act requiring the payment of contributions towards the cost of providing increases under Part I of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 in official pensions payable under section 9 or 10 of the Superannuation Act 1972; or
(iii) the provision of benefits for teachers in connection with injuries sustained, or diseases contracted, in the course of their employment;

(d) any administrative expenses of a Minister of the Crown attributable to the Act;

(2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums received by a Minister of the Crown by virtue of the Act;

and in this Resolution—
official pension" has the same meaning as it has in the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971; and
teacher" has the same meaning as it has in section 9 of the Superannuation Act 1972.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Government Trading Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The main purpose of the Bill is to extend the enabling powers under the Government Trading Funds Act 1973 to establish trading funds. The new powers will be a major contribution to Civil Service management changes, and thus to the benefits that the Government expect from the Next Steps initiative—the creation of agencies—and the fundamental reform of the Civil Service management and financial management.
To illustrate the links between the Bill and the wider processes of management improvement, we have published the White Paper, "The Financing and Accountability of Next Steps Agencies". The House, through the Select Committees that have so far taken most interest in Next Steps—the Public Accounts Committee and the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee—has generally supported the Next Steps initiative, and I hope that the Bill will commend itself to hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Bill and White Paper are designed to strengthen the performance of Government Departments by encouraging civil servants to take a more businesslike approach to the efficiency and quality of the delivery of Government services.
The White Paper sets out the background to the Bill. As it says, although the powers to set up trading funds are not limited to Next Steps agencies, it is expected that future trading funds will be entirely, or almost entirely, drawn from agencies. Thus the Bill takes forward the objectives underlying the Government's whole strategy for public service reform—greater freedom for managers, coupled with greater accountability for delivering agreed objectives. It will allow more organisations to operate as trading funds, which will give them greater financial freedom and greater disciplines akin to those of private sector organisations.
It may be helpful if I explain how trading fund status will help to promote those objectives. As paragraph 4.2 of the White Paper stated:
A 'trading fund' provides a financing framework which covers operating costs and receipts, capital expenditure, borrowing and net cash flow. It has powers to borrow to meet capital expenditure and working capital requirements, and to establish reserves out of surpluses. Within this framework, it can meet outgoings without detailed cash flows passing through Vote accounting arrangements.
At present only some 20 per cent. of the running costs of Government Departments are offset by related receipts. It follows that the majority of Government activities will not be suitable to become trading funds. That does not mean that agencies dealing with those activities are second-class citizens. Indeed, much of the White Paper is devoted to improving arrangements for them. It is important that all agencies that could benefit from the more commercial discipline of a trading fund should be able to do so. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor informed the House on 1 February 1989, when he was Chief Secretary, the main purpose of the Bill is to widen the enabling powers under the Government Trading Funds Act 1973 to cover bodies that are directed by statute to provide a service and where the fees are fixed by


regulation. As bodies such as the vehicle inspectorate and Companies house do not fall within existing powers, the main purpose of the Bill is to extend the 1973 Act enabling powers to such cases.
Trading fund status will make possible a much more businesslike approach to the delivery of Government services. However, it has one characteristic that will rightly cause the House carefully to consider an extension of the Government's powers to use that particular financial mechanism. It is that the detailed cash flows of trading funds are outside the full processes of the supply system through which Parliament authorises and controls expenditure. In recognition of that, the 1973 Act rightly requires that no trading fund can be set up without Parliament debating each proposal on an affirmative resolution order. That principle is extremely important, and it is maintained in the Bill.
The other characteristic of the original legislation, which is strengthened in the Bill, is the statutory requirement for accounting to Parliament. That is much stronger for trading funds than for the remainder of the Civil Service, and the accountability operates direct from the trading fund to Parliament.
The Government Trading Funds Act 1973 arose from an early precursor of the Government's management reforms. That was the concept of units of accountable management proposed in the 1968 report of the Fulton committee on the Civil Service and the 1970 Conservative Administration's White Paper "The Reorganisation of Central Government". Although the concept is similar to that underlying changes implemented by the Government, it never really took off in the 1970s. The 1973 Act and the three trading funds still established under it—Her Majesty's Stationery Office, the Royal Mint and the Crown Suppliers—are almost the sole surviving relics.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: How do these proposals fit in with those for the PSA and Crown Suppliers Bill that we shall begin discussing in Committee tomorrow?

Mr. Lamont: The proposals for the Crown Suppliers and its possible privatisation are entirely matters for the Committee considering the Bill. If that Bill is enacted and the Crown Suppliers are ultimately privatised, it would cease to be a trading fund. The Crown Suppliers was one of the products of the original legislation, but it is being dealt with separately by the Bill to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
During the 1980s the Government have pursued a series of initiatives designed to secure better value for money. Government Departments have had a continuing programme of efficiency scrutinies run under the supervision of the Prime Minister's efficiency unit. The central unit on purchasing has encouraged development of better methods and greater professional skills. In the Health Service, cost improvement programmes have encouraged health authorities to identify and implement ways of providing services to patients more cost-effectively. The result of those measures alone has been total savings to date of some £3 billion. Such savings have helped to finance steady increases in priority areas of spending as well as reducing costs to the taxpayer.
Improved management can deliver better services at less cost. There is no conflict between greater efficiency and improving the quality of the service. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said when he was Chief Secretary:

Shoddy public services should not be an option. Nor should they be tolerated.
A key element in the Government's value-for-money strategy has been the delegation of budgets and financial control to units of management and, wherever possible, to individuals. For the Civil Service, the starting point was the financial management initiative. It had one major purpose—to place responsibility for decisions on both spending and costs at the level where operations and activities are managed and delivered. The units concerned, and the people in them, were then to be accountable for the results.
The statement of principle might be simple, but implementation is more complex and difficult. It has required a major change in attitudes throughout the Civil Service, which has responded enthusiastically to the new opportunities and challenges. It has also required a great deal of hard work in redesigning systems and procedures.
Government Departments are large, varied and complex businesses combining policy and executive functions. Those factors have sometimes made it difficult to delegate down the line, to managers at working level, the clear authority to enable them to make the changes that would deliver improved value for money.
Those issues were addressed in the efficiency unit report entitled "Improving Management in Government: the Next Steps". The key recommendation, accepted by the Prime Minister in her statement to the House on 18 February 1988, was that
to the greatest extent practicable the executive functions of Government, as distinct from policy advice, should be carried out by units clearly designated within Departments, referred to in the report as 'agencies'. Responsibility for the day-to-day operations of each agency should be delegated to a chief executive. He would be responsible for management within a framework of policy objectives and resources set by the responsible Minister, in consultation with the Treasury." —[Official Report, 18 February 1988; Vol. 127, c. 1149.]
The Next Steps initiative builds on the financial management initiative. It is a major step in delegating responsibility to Civil Service managers within clear parameters. It is designed to deliver services more efficiently and effectively, within available resources, for the benefit of taxpayers, customers and staff. It provides a clear framework for delegation and accountability. That makes possible increased delegation to an agency, and through the agency right down to those directly responsible for service delivery, coupled with accountability for the results achieved. The agencies already set up and the announced candidates are listed in annex A to the White Paper. Taken together, they cover about one-third of the Civil Service. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Privy Council Office, will reply to the debate and will deal with any issues that hon. Members may wish to raise on Next Steps agencies, possible candidates and the future for them.
When an agency is set up, it is necessary to look in detail at the financial controls and accountability arrangements within which it will operate. The wide variety of Government functions means that that inevitably has to be done on a case-by-case basis. But the early experience with Next Steps has enabled us to formulate the key general principles that are set out in the White Paper. The Government Trading Bill deals with the aspects of that policy which require primary legislation to implement, and it may assist the House if I outline briefly the coverage of the Bill.
Clause 1 repeals sections 1 and 2 of the Government Trading Funds Act 1973 and inserts five new sections in it. Section 1 deals with the new powers, which are the central change introduced by the Bill. They would, if Parliament approves the necessary affirmative resolution in each case, allow a trading fund to be established where its revenue consists principally of receipts in respect of goods or services provided, and where it would lead to improved management efficiency and effectiveness. The White Paper—in paragraphs 4.15 to 4.19—explain how in policy terms the Government propose that those new powers would be used.
Use of the powers would be considered on a case-by-case basis. It is therefore not possible to set out in advance a clear list of candidates. However, among existing agencies, early candidates for consideration as trading funds are expected to include the vehicle inspectorate, Companies house, the historic royal palaces and Warren Springs laboratory.
Section 2 deals with how the originating debt of a trading fund is determined. In particular, it allows for the possibility of varying the originating debt to take account of subsequent changes in assets and liabilities of a fund. Section 2A deals with the issue of public dividend capital to a trading fund. Annex B to the White Paper explains the circumstances in which that might be used. Section 2B deals with borrowing by funds, and in particular allows funds to borrow from Votes as an alternative to borrowing from the national loans fund. It is envisaged that the majority of borrowing by trading funds in the future will be from Votes.
Section 4A deals with winding up funds. There have been suggestions in some press reports that increased use of trading funds is designed to prepare more activities for privatisation. There is a grain of truth in this, but only a very small grain in that trading funds are a suitable regime only for the more commercially-oriented Government activities, and it is commercially-oriented activities that are likely to be most suitable for privatisation. But as the White Paper makes clear, the policy remains that described by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 24 October 1988:
'Next Steps' is primarily about those operations which are to remain within Government. I cannot rule out, however, that after a period of years agencies, like other Government activities, may be suitable for privatisation".—[Official Report, 24 October 1988; Vol. 139, c. 14.]
I should therefore make clear that section 4A is intended to deal only with cases where activities cease altogether, where funds are merged, or where they are better financed by other means within the public sector, and not with privatisation.

Mr. Dalyell: What does the Minister mean by this see-sawing? How does that proposal fit in with the proposals for the Property Services Agency?

Mr. Lamont: The Bill does not cover the Property Services Agency privatisation and the PSA is not listed in the annex. The PSA is the subject of separate legislation and my comments do not apply to it; they apply to the bodies covered in the annex.

Dr. John Marek: That is an important point. Will the PSA not be run as a Government trading fund before it is privatised?

Mr. Lamont: It will not. The PSA and the Crown Suppliers are subject to separate legislation and a separate policy which will be considered in Standing Committee.
Clause 2 deals mainly with minor and consequential amendments, but it and clause 3 also deal with important improvements in reporting and accounting arrangements.
Clause 4 deals with a separate matter which has been encompassed conveniently within the Bill. Clause 4 takes advantage of the opportunity to remove from the statute book a 1946 power over private sector corporate borrowing which is largely a dead letter already, and will be wholly a dead letter from next April. Clause 5 deals with the short title, savings, repeals and extent.
I want to conclude by drawing the attention of the House to the important provisions relating to reports and accounts. A major objective of the Next Steps initiative is to reinforce accountability to Ministers and to Parliament by clarifying managerial responsibilities. That applies to all agencies, whether or not they become trading funds. The enhanced role and accountability of agency chief executives and the introduction of framework documents are essential parts of this.
For trading funds, the 1973 Act provided for each fund to produce annual commercial-style accounts which are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General and laid before Parliament. The Government consider that the opportunity should now be taken to strengthen those reporting and accounting arrangements. The Bill therefore proposes bringing the Treasury's powers of direction over accounts into line with those in more recent legislation and it contains a new requirement for the production and publication of annual reports. Such reports will include, in particular, a review of performance against financial, efficiency and quality of service targets. Parliament will thus have available to it consistent annual reports and accounts for each trading fund.
For agencies that are not trading funds, the Bill would extend section 5 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921 in a way that would give the Treasury powers to require the production of commercial-style accounts for any agency. Those would be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General and laid before Parliament. As the White Paper explains, the aim would be to use these powers so that agencies which were not trading funds would supplement the appropriation accounts by commercial-style accounts prepared on an accruals basis and including balance sheets.
The proposals will increase the information available to Parliament and to the general public. The way agencies are run and managed will become more open, and their performance against the targets that they have been set will be made clear. This is an important step in increasing accountability to Parliament and more widely, and one which I believe will be welcomed by this House. The Bill may appear to be narrow and technical, but I hope that I have made it clear that it has major implications for the working of Government Departments and for the public sector. As such, I commend it to the House.

Dr. John Marek: The Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that the Bill may appear to be narrow and technical, but it nevertheless has important consequences for the way in which the Civil Service is run. I agree with him. In some respects, the Bill has come before the House


as a result of a deficiency in the Government Trading Funds Act 1973 and because it is not as easy to set up Government trading funds as the Government would like.
The Chief Secretary outlined his view of the proposals. His interpretation of the Bill may be correct. However, another view may follow from the fact that the Government are obsessed with their dogma of privatisation. If the Tories win another election, perhaps many Government agencies will be liable for privatisation in subsequent Parliaments. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friends say, there is not much chance of that. But anything, however unlikely, is possible. It is true that, no matter how unprofitable it may be for the country, if something can be sold or even given away with an added backhander if necessary—for example, a green dowry which may cost about £1 billion, or a sweetener if Rover or British Aerospace is involved—the Government believe that the sooner the plans are laid to do so the better.
The second view is that the Bill is a step along the road to breaking up the Civil Service and preparing large sections of it for eventual privatisation. There is also a third view. It follows from the premise not that the Government are obsessed by their privatisation dogma but that they are obsessed by their cost-cutting and so-called efficiency dogma.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Shocking.

Dr. Marek: The Chief Secretary says, "Shocking." Nobody is in favour of spending more money than necessary, but there is a trade-off between spending money and delivering a service to the public. [Interruption.] Before Conservative Members laugh too readily, they should remember that anybody who has wanted a passport in the past year or two will not understand what they are laughing at. People returning from the continent must wait for an hour at Dover because there are not enough Customs officials. They will not understand why Conservative Members are laughing about this important matter. It is not about spending as little money as possible. It is about spending the right amount and giving the right service to the public.

Mr. Keith Mans: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one good way of ensuring that we spend the right amount of money on a service is to create just the sort of trading fund that the Bill would allow?

Dr. Marek: I will come to that point because it is the whole object of the Bill. Certain things will be acceptable in certain circumstances if a fund is run correctly and if there are clear guidelines on how a chief executive should run it. Such an agency could deliver a service and be subject to greater scrutiny by the House. I am not prepared to believe that the Government will do anything along those lines. The Government's intention is to try to save as much money as possible.
The third view is that even this Government cannot privatise large sections of the Civil Service and that their ultimate intention is to commercialise services that are presently provided by the Civil Service.
Agricultural Development Advisory Service officers charge farmers, even though it may discourage some farmers from using that service and could also be to the detriment of the farming industry and the public. A system of low charges may ensure that farmers do not capriciously or unnecessarily seek advice, but if a trading fund is

formed, such services must be operated taking one year with another without making a loss. Charges could become very high and farmers would not use services as much as they should. Without any shadow of doubt, that would be detrimental not only to the farming industry but to the public as a whole.
The third view is that charges will be increased by the Government from time to time so that people will eventually pay the total cost of services provided and a commercial operation will result. We have heard that Government trading funds will set certain Civil Service activities on a more commercial basis. Of course we could set activities on a more commercial basis, but would the service to the public become better or worse? Several documents have been published over the past three or four years, but that point has not been addressed by the Government.
The Opposition are hostile to the Bill in so far as it seeks to achieve any of the aims expressed in the second or third views to which I have referred. We are profoundly suspicious about the first view which the Chief Secretary pressed upon us. There will be some advantages in some situations, and I will comment on them later.
Let us assume that the first view is correct and the Government have no intentions in respect of overtly commercial activities by agencies operating trading funds. It is all very well considering matters case by case, but we have no clear idea of how much of the Civil Service the Government want to turn into agencies, although figures such as three quarters have been given in evidence to various committees in the past. Equally, we have not heard how many trading funds will be instituted. The passport office is one candidate [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Again many Conservative Members shout, "Hear, hear." There is a fee for passports. At present, there is an unacceptably long delay for new or renewed passports. Of course that delay does not apply to Members of Parliament, because the Home Office manages to provide us with a 24-hour service. Hon. Members have nothing to complain about, but the public have a lot to complain about. Except in cases of extreme urgency, people must wait weeks on end.
Let us suppose that the passport office is to be run as a trading fund. What will be the cost of a passport? At the moment, primary legislation would be required to change the cost of a passport. I hope that the Government will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that primary legislation would be required to change one of the crucial ingredients of the operation of a trading fund in the Home Office. Who will decide the level of charges? A certain sum was decided many years ago, and no doubt inflation has taken its toll and somebody in the Treasury advises the Home Office from time to time on what it should be in future.
If a trading fund is instituted, the passport offices would have to look after themselves and take one year with another and not make a loss. The cost of a passport could be prohibitive. If the cost of passports is not to be prohibitive, members of the public will have to wait an unconscionably long time. Most members of the public would say that a week's delay would be reasonable in the case of a new passport and they would not see any reason why a renewed passport could not be delivered by return post or perhaps one extra day at most. Because the work is seasonal, an accountant managing the trading fund would advise a month or six months waiting time in spring


or summer and would say that the backlog could be made up in the winter. That is largely what happens at present and if there were a trading fund, where would there be an incentive to do anything different? It would be a choice between providing a service for the public or being able to operate the trading fund so as to have a black figure on the bottom line.
Perhaps the cost of issuing a passport could be deemed to be too high and it might be decided to pass the total cost to the public. If that happened, the Government would have to provide funds out of general taxation to avoid a permanent backlog. The ultimate horror would be a two-tier system. Those who wanted a passport quickly and by return of post would have to pay double or treble for the privilege. Of course such things are not unknown under the Government because those who have the money are able to take advantage of such services while the rest of us have to wait.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend is speaking about a trading fund. The Minister answered my hon. Friend's query by saying that the PSA was not relevant. Paragraph 8 of the Property Services Agency's report on the management of the civil estate says:
The Property Services Agency are considering the introduction of commercial accounts and a trading fund to give clear information to clients and Parliament. Improvements in their information systems are necessary, however, and although significant interim improvements are being made their strategy is unlikely to be implemented before the 1990s.
That shows that my hon. Friend's question is highly pertinent to the debate.

Dr. Marek: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a pertinent and important question, and I am glad that the Chief Secretary said that there is no intention of running the PSA with a trading fund, before it is privatised. There has been some confusion about that, but now we have a clear answer which helps many people and not just hon. Members.
I was speaking about the passport offices and how they would be run with a trading fund. The Government do not approve of public expenditure and because of that I suspect that a long waiting list would be permanent and inevitable. The central issues are whether the service should be self-financing and what are the trade-offs between the cost of the service and its proper performance. There is no point in supplying new passports within a week if proper checks are not made about the applicants.
There is no point in making a service self-financing if it is deemed beneficial for it to be used but it is too expensive for the average man or woman. Women have the right to a free smear test for cervical cancer. I hope that no hon. Member can think of any circumstances in which there should be a charge for such a test because it is patently and clearly in the interests of the country as a whole that that service should be free.
As I have said, I could be convinced that some of the pitfalls and difficulties could be avoided and that the passport offices could begin to provide a proper service and have a trading fund at the same time. However—and this is crucial—it is not the trading fund that is vital but having properly paid and properly motivated civil servants. If there are enough of them and they have a high regard for their work and are efficient, thorough, precise

and accurate, people will have a good service. That has little to do with a commercial trading fund about which the Government are seeking to persuade us.
We have to decide whether a proposed charge for a passport is fair and reasonable and whether it is possible and sensible to operate a trading fund on a quasi-commercial basis and provide a first-class service to the public. It would be wrong to set up a fund, commercialise the passport offices, and charge the necessary amount. Passport offices make inquiries about applicants for passports. If they use the police, will the police charge for their activities? Perhaps the police already do that. I will give way to any hon. Member who knows about that. In some cases there would be an incentive for such checks to be minimal and that would be detrimental to the proper functioning of the Civil Service and thus to the country.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend speaks about the police. In one aspect of police work a new system is being brought in. For the first time in police history there is a system of paying for certain forensic science services. That is a new issue of principle. I am very interested in the forensic laboratories and to me the matter is serious.

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend is right. That matter was next in my notes. The Government are interested in charges and cost cutting and eventual privatisation. Forensic science laboratories now have to receive money from the police when the police send them work to do. As a result, less work will be sent to them by the police. The police will be overstretched and will hesitate to send work to the laboratories. Perhaps eventually the forensic laboratories will have trading funds. Crime that should be solved will be unsolved. There should be no question of an accountant looking at unsolved crime and saying that at least thousands of pounds have been saved; I suspect that if we go too far towards trading funds and agencies we will end up in precisely that situation. When that happens it will provide work for many accountants. If the Government were to remain in office for a long time I would advise youngsters at school to train to be accountants. However, that is hypothetical because the Government will not be in power much longer. Much Government legislation is for the welfare of accountants and not for the good of the country or its expeditious and efficient governance.
I shall not dwell on my next two examples in the way I have dwelt on the passport example. Revenue received by Customs and Excise is well in excess of the cost of providing the service because the revenue comes from such things as value added tax and stamp duty. Let us consider ports of entry to the United Kingdom. Can one imagine Customs officers becoming really zealous in their tasks if items seized could be sold to contribute directly to the trading fund? That is certainly not beyond the bounds of possibility. Customs officers in Dover could say, "We are not making a profit for the trading fund and it is nearly the end of the month. We had better search everybody leaving the ships and make them wait for an hour or two." That example may be far fetched, but the principle is sound. The commercial activity that the Government seek to encourage among civil servants is precisely that which I am describing.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the searches to which he refers involve contraband, drugs and so forth, none of which can


be used to contribute to the trading fund? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's example is a little wild in the context of the Bill.

Dr. Marek: I would not defend my arguments all the way along the road. However, to some extent my argument highlights the philosophy of the Government. Perhaps not contraband or heroin but the odd bottle of whisky or item of clothing from Hong Kong may be taken through Customs without being declared.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Before the hon. Gentleman gets too carried away, has he noticed paragraph 4.14 of the White Paper which says:
Thus for example the delivery of social security benefits, and tax assessment and collection are outside the powers"?

Dr. Marek: I have noticed that and that is why I have restricted my argument to the Customs and Excise which does not carry out tax collection in the strict sense in which the Chief Secretary means it. When goods are declared that is what the Customs and Excise does, but I was talking about the aspect of Customs work that involves detecting goods coming into the country which are not declared where there is an intention to defraud on the part of the persons bringing in the goods.
I do not wish to dwell on the Customs and Excise. Suffice it to say that it is not just about detecting contraband. Most of its task is to collect tax on goods which are properly declared. There is a trade-off between stopping the importation of illegal articles and ensuring that the proper duties are paid on other articles. It is also the job of the Customs officers at ports of entry to be civil to and not to inconvenience unduly the travelling public at ports of entry. At present there are long queues and much inconvenience is caused at ports of entry. It is tempting to say that any other system must be better, but that is not the answer. Nor is a trading fund the answer. Let ports of entry be properly staffed. Let there be more than one desk at immigration when 300 people come off a jumbo jet. Let the Government employ a few more Customs officers so that motorists taking their cars off the ferries at Dover, Folkestone and elsewhere can go through the formalities without waiting for one or two hours as they have to do on many occasions. That is the answer.
The Government have said that the vehicle inspectorate is a number one candidate for a trading fund. A balance will have to be struck between charging for the services that it provides and proper attention to and testing of vehicles to ensure that the public are safe and can be assured that the inspectorate is performing its functions properly. If there is a trading fund, the chief executive will be given powers to run the inspectorate at a profit. There is a danger that if he deems that it would be difficult to set charges at the market level or a high enough level he will be tempted to cut corners and tell his employees, "Do not spend half an hour testing this vehicle. Can you not do it in 20 or 25 minutes?" The Government must address the danger that corners will be cut. They must assure Opposition Members and the country that it will not happen.
The White Paper says on page 6 in paragraph 2.2:
The main aim of the Next Steps initiative is to deliver services more efficiently and effectively".
We can call that phrase weasel words. I think that at one time or another we have all used that phrase. Such concepts are not easily defined. We interpret them in our

own way. I have my own interpretation of performing a service efficiently and effectively. If we read on, we see that the paragraph says,
within available resources for the benefit of taxpayers
There we have another example of the Government's cost-cutting ethos. It is the Government who set the resources. They will set them at too low a level and will then set the impossible task—not only to the chief executive—to carry out the functions of the agency properly and responsibly. The Government will put enormous pressure on the civil servants in the agency. Employees will have to struggle simply to keep their jobs and do them properly and accurately.
The same paragraph of the Command Paper says that agencies represent a new and distinctive development. That is what the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said in his opening remarks. There are problems with agencies. They depend on the director. A bad manager will mean, by and large, that we shall have a bad agency, if not immediately, certainly in due course.

Mr. Hind: This argument equally applies to civil servants at present.

Dr. Marek: I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me in that argument. If we are to have agencies it is crucial that the chief executives are of high calibre and have management skills to enable them to make a success of running the day-to-day affairs of the agency. They must also have sufficient integrity not to buckle to the Minister at his every whim.
Government trading funds are intended for many agencies. Some agencies were not necessarily set up as a result of the Fulton committee but partly in an attempt to reduce the pay of civil servants. Agencies will result in regionalisation of pay, local pay additions and a lack of mobility for civil servants. Employees will not be able to transfer from one agency to another or return to the Civil Service as easily as they did in the past. I may be overstating the ease with which they could move in the past, but the onus is on the Government to assure us that if the Bill reaches the statute book and if agencies are set up, some with Government trading funds, the mobility of civil servants will be no worse than before.
Mr. Kemp, the project manager of the Next Steps project, is effusive in his protestations that agencies will provide a better service to the public and improve morale in the Civil Service. I have no reason to believe that he does not believe that that will be so. However, it is implied that pay will have to be differentiated on geographical grounds. That has been demonstrated. There is a hidden implication that agencies would make the Civil Service a more commercial organisation, dedicated to making a profit at the expense of the public. Sometimes that is a precursor to privatisation in a future Parliament.
All the factors that I have mentioned are worrying. Many people believe that the confrontation between management, which pursues profits, and employees has caused our economic decline this century. There is a danger that that confrontation will be introduced into the Civil Service.
To take an example of what is wrong with British industry, at the end of last week the ambulance workers' unions suggested that there should be a 15-minute stoppage of work. They did not say, "Everybody out. It does not matter what the employers say." They said, "Let us stop work for 15 minutes. Ask your employer if he or


she will allow you to stop work. If that is acceptable, stop for 15 minutes." What did British industry do? It did not say, "All right, we agree. we do not think that the ambulance men and women are right and a stoppage of 15 minutes would be detrimental to the country generally, but we agree that something should be done to tell the ambulance men and women and the Government to get together and to reach an agreement." They did not say, "Production cannot be stopped in essential industries." Nor did they say, "We do not mind, but work 15 minutes later." Instead, the Institute of Directors and the CBI said to industry, "You can sue the unions if they stop work for 15 minutes."
That is an ethos which I do not want to see within the Civil Service. I do not want to see that confrontational style. By and large, the Civil Service is still administering the country on the bases of fairness and accuracy. By and large, civil servants take a pride in their work and aim for excellence in every respect. The Government have attacked that approach and made life difficult wherever possible.
When the Government took office, the pay review unit was cancelled. There was an attempt to privatise the National Engineering Laboratory. A ban was placed on trade unions at GCHQ. Research institutes became demoralised. The Bill's provisions propose the spread of agencies and trading funds. I shall need much convincing by the Government that the Bill's provisions are not merely another way of cutting staff, introducing regional pay and more contracting out, and ending national pay bargaining.

Mr. Edward Leigh: All good things.

Dr. Marek: There we have it. The hon. Gentleman says, "All good things." He is honest. I hope that what I am saying does not constitute the Government's intent. I hope also that Conservative Members will disown the hon. Gentleman's intervention. As I have said, I believe that the Bill signals the ending of national terms and conditions of service.
A code of ethics is to be introduced for the Civil Service. The loyalty of a civil servant to his or her Minister is to be absolute. I do not know how that can work. For example, Inland Revenue civil servants have statutory duties when they are dealing with the tax affairs of members of the public. Lawyers have legal obligations when discharging their functions. Statisticians have professional duties. How would we resolve a potential conflict?
The Government are not interested in fairness, justice or morality. Thank goodness there are not many bent civil servants. Under the Government, however, many decent people will have to continue to wrestle with their conscience, as did Clive Ponting. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will agree that if a civil servant improperly authorises the release of letters written by the Attorney-General—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying wide of the terms of the Bill.

Dr. Marek: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am coming to the end of my remarks.
If a civil servant improperly authorises the release of letters—

Mr. Dalyell: What my hon. Friend says is especially relevant to the fact, which I believe is unprecedented, that the First Division Association has formally protested to the Government about the new guidelines for relations between civil servants and the Government. It has argued that the Crown comes into the matter at some stage. Is it not extraordinary that the First Division Association should have complained about its treatment by any British Government?

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend has made an important intervention. What he says is symptomatic of the Government's attack upon the Civil Service over the past 10 years. It is certain that a civil servant who improperly authorises the release of letters written by the Attorney-General is as bent as the Minister who asks him to do it. I do not believe that civil servants should be put in difficult positions of that sort. We are to have trading funds—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is difficult to relate the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the Bill.

Dr. Marek: I shall seek to explain why they relate to the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
There may be cost cutting in the operation of a trading fund. Vehicles may not be inspected properly, for example, because of the pressures that are on the trading fund. The chief executive may say, "We are not making a profit for the fund." That will put the civil servant in the same difficulty that other civil servants have faced in other areas of the Civil Service. That has been happening throughout the Government's existence. We are not faced with an isolated problem with the introduction and spread of trading funds. If the Government are serious, I accept that it is possible that trading funds could work in some instances, but the Government must convince Opposition Members that they are not pursuing their old dogma and attacks on the Civil Service of the sort that we have witnessed over the past 10 years. That is the central issue.
The Bill will not do much for the Civil Service or the public. We suspect that clear intentions lie behind its introduction, and if that is so they will warrant unlimited opposition. Mr. Kemp, the Next Steps project manager, envisages three quarters of the Civil Service eventually being organised on an agency basis. When the agencies have been set up and the framework agreements instituted, the unions have not been consulted. Any hon. Member who wishes to pursue that matter a little further has to read only page 7 of House of Commons Paper No. 420, the 38th report of the Public Accounts Committee. It is there made pretty clear that the unions were not consulted properly.
The next Labour Government will put matters right. Mr. Kemp will be given something else to do when that Administration takes office.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman for three quarters of an hour and I have not been able to establish so far whether it is the Opposition's intention to oppose the Bill. Will he make that clear?

Dr. Marek: I shall come to that.
The next Labour Government will not disband the agencies that have already been created but in all probability we shall not create any more. I say that because the nation's economy is in such a mess that there are many important actions that the next Labour


Government will have to take. We shall then see how the agencies and the trading funds have operated. At that stage we may be able to take a more considered view.
There is nothing wrong with the accountability to Parliament that is provided by the Bill. I have no quarrel with that. Besides publishing accounts, however, there should be scrutiny by Parliament over the day-to-day affairs of chief executives of agencies. That can be carried out by the Public Accounts Committee. Better still, however, the scrutiny should be available to every Member of this place. That could be provided for but at the moment I am not sure of the Government's intentions. I refer to page 18 of the White Paper. At the end of paragraph 5.10 there appears the following:
The exact format of individual reports, and their degree of detail, will be for the responsible Minister and the Chief Executive to decide in the light of circumstances and objectives.
That is not good enough. I should like a more forthright statement about the Government's readiness to accept, first, accountability, and, secondly, scrutiny.
There is one other initiative that the next Labour Government will take because the Bill says little about responsibility to the consumer. It makes mention of delivering a service but not of accountability. Agencies could he vehicles for a much better service to the public. It will be possible to give agencies guidelines on how they should go about their activities. Such guidelines would not be dictated solely by commercial considerations, and because of the nature of the agencies it will be easier both for Parliament and the public to judge them and their success—or otherwise. That particular aspect is one to which a Labour Government will pay close attention.
The Bill has some good points, depending on which Government are responsible for enforcing its provisions. For that reason, the Government should publish a list of trading fund candidates as they have in respect of agencies. The Government should declare also how much privatisation is envisaged for the long term.

Mr. Norman Lamont: We have done so.

Dr. Marek: I am speaking of the long term. I do not wish to delay the House, but there are quotations from the Prime Minister in which she stated that it was not possible to reveal what will and will not be privatised in the long term.
As to the question of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), if the Bill receives its Second Reading, we shall press the Government in Committee on all the issues that I mentioned.

6 pm

Mr. Edward Leigh: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on his short and effective presentation of the Bill, in just 20 minutes. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) spoke for nearly 50 minutes, and I feel sure that even his own right hon. and hon. Friends would like to see him shunted off into a trading fund. We might then be able to get on with our business.
The Bill is an important, albeit technical, measure. At present there are 10 executive agencies employing 7,000 staff. The Bill makes provision for a further 42 agencies involving perhaps 190,000 people, so we are talking big business. I welcome the Bill, which is entirely in line with Government policy. Such services need to be more

business oriented and geared to consumer demand and market forces. If matters of managerial judgment are involved, why should not more flexible arrangements be made in the agencies?
Annex A of the White Paper "The Financing and Accountability of Next Steps Agencies" presents a long list of the agencies, but few of them concern the Ministry of Defence. One relates to the Royal Air Force, but there is no agency connected with either of the other two services. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will comment on that when he replies to the debate. There is scope within the Ministry of Defence for more initiatives of the kind that we are debating.
The White Paper states that the Next Steps project manager will identify obstacles and tackle them. Can my right hon. Friend state what kind of business experience is available in the manager's office? Will it be manned entirely by civil servants? There is clearly a need for much greater business acumen, and that is particularly relevant in the light of paragraph 2.6 of the White Paper, which reads:
Before any Agency is established, the need for the activity is reviewed and alternative options, including contracting out the work and privatisation, arc examined.
Will there be continuous monitoring of the prospects for privatisation, and will there be sufficient impetus and knowledge of the private sector in the Next Steps office to ensure that trading status is not a convenient and quiet alternative to privatisation? In many instances, privatisation may be the better solution.
Paragraph 2.7 of the White Paper makes it clear that the Bill is a response to the work of the Public Accounts Committee. I take it that the Government are seeking to clarify the managerial role of trading agencies as distinct from the policy role of the relevant Ministers. When my right hon. Friend winds up, perhaps he will say whether all the Committee's recommendations have been implemented. If only some have been implemented, which recommendations have not been implemented?
The outcome of each agency's work will be set out in the framework document and "made available to Parliament". What does that mean? How much scrutiny will there be? I accept, given the different natures of the agencies, that there will be some diversity in their relationships and closeness to Ministers. The key question is whether they will be equally accountable to Parliament.
Under existing arrangements for the Civil Service, Departments are cash limited and subject to scrutiny by' the Public Accounts Committee and Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. The new arrangements will be different. The trading funds established in 1973 allowed the Government to finance activities outside normal parliamentary control. Those funds have considerable independence, including the power to borrow. Paragraph 4.3 of the White Paper states:
Parliamentary control is obtained through:—the affirmative Order establishing each fund—the scrutiny of statutory annual accounts, and the power to examine the fund Accounting Officer.
How much scrutiny of those funds by Parliament has there been? What evidence is there that they have been successful?
The Government Trading Funds Act 1973 established a strictly limited number of well-known trading funds, such as the Royal Mint and her Majesty's Stationery Office. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the


much longer list of smaller and lesser-known bodies that will, under the Bill, be allowed to enjoy trading fund status will receive adequate parliamentary scrutiny?
Paragraph 4.6 of the White Paper states:
Under the 1973 Act the accounts of a trading fund are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General, who is required to lay them before Parliament together with his report. They are then published as a House of Commons Paper. This provides a basis for Parliament to consider the performance of the funds against its financial and other performance targets.
We often hear those comforting words in our debates, but how much parliamentary scrutiny of the trading funds has there really been and how effective was it? I am not saying that I disagree with the Bill, but it is only right for this House to demand more clarification on Second Reading. The Bill is clearly needed, but as it gives the Government enormous powers Parliament has a right to the answers it seeks.
I agree that the present definition of trading status is imprecise and I welcome the new formula, which was originally outlined in paragraph 4.12 of the White Paper. However, is not the new formula so broad as to include virtually anything? That may suit those who share my ideological standpoint, but that degree of breadth may concern other right hon. and hon. Members. It is important that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury reassures them when he replies.
The rules of payment for the use of Government services in respect of social security benefits, for example, apply to fewer than half of all receipts and therefore will not be covered by the Bill. However, I should like to know how the figure of 50 per cent. was arrived at, for no explanation has been given. I would welcome my right hon. Friend's comments on that aspect. Why stick at 50 per cent.? Why not make it less, or more?
I would appreciate further information on the way in which the Government intend to use what is a very generous enabling Bill. Paragraph 4.16 of the White Paper states:
The first criterion for assessing suitability is whether, as a matter of policy, the Government considers that levels of activity and expenditure should vary in line with demands and receipts.
I do not claim to be a highly intelligent Member of Parliament, but I find it difficult to understand that particular phrase and shall be grateful for my right hon. Friend's elucidation of it. Also, if agency trading comes about, how will the arm's length relationship with other Government Departments be maintained? The White Paper does not provide sufficient assurances. How will staff performance be rewarded? Will there be increased pay or bonuses? That aspect relates to paragraph 18 of the White Paper. Finally, how will the external finance limit restrict business initiative by the staff operating in the trading funds?
I apologise to my right hon. Friend for asking so many questions. In general, I welcome what is a worthwhile and useful Bill, which will do much to increase public confidence in the agencies. I wish the Bill every success in Committee and in its later stages.

Mr. A. J. Beith: This is a useful Bill which will improve the present statutory provision for creating trading accounts within the public service.
I listened for about three quarters of an hour to find out whether Labour Members would vote against the Bill, and I have come to the conclusion that no one will vote against it tonight. I assume that I am correct. It was clearly inadequate to continue to rest the creation of the funds on the basis of the old legislation, and the Government are sensible to introduce the Bill.
Although I assume that it is the case, it is not clear from the face of the Bill whether the creation of any trading fund will require an affirmative resolution of the House. The Government have said that in the White Paper, and I assume that the combined effect of the two Bills is that it will require an affirmative resolution for any fund to be set up. If that is not the case, it should be put right during the passage of the Bill. The Government have said that that is their intention, and I assume that they will keep to that.
A series of possible candidates for trading funds is listed in the White Paper. A number of those listed do not lend themselves to being trading funds because they do not fall within the just-quoted definition of activities in which there can be some variation of expenditure according "to demands and receipts." That applies to a relatively small number.
When the candidates are considered, it is important that not only the trading fund operation is taken into account but how performance standards can be set for the funds. The worry is that agencies will not have adequate performance standards set and that standards will not be monitored. The White Paper says that the
Agencies will commit themselves to substantial and measurable improvements in performance, in terms of services and their costs".
It should be made clear that the standards will be set at the beginning, and that they will weigh as heavily on the agency as the requirement to balance its books. If that is not so, we will simply get a perpetuation of inadequate standards or worse.
The passport office has been referred to, and I hope that nobody has come to the conclusion that the existing system is working satisfactorily. No one who has observed the work of the Liverpool passport office during the past two or three years can argue that it is working satisfactorily, and that was the case long before the industrial dispute. I am glad that the Government Chief Whip is in his place because he was a Home Office Minister and many of the staff in his office were helpful to hon. Members seeking to chase up passports for constituents who urgently needed them. Passport applications were extracted from a mound of applications that had not been dealt with. I had a number of experiences that led me to believe that the organisation was not being run as a commercial organisation would be run.
Late one Saturday afternoon I was on the telephone to an official in the Minister's office at the Home Office. I was working on a passport application. The Minister and civil servants in London were working on a passport application but no member of the management was in the Liverpool office to find out what had happened to it. I expect that they were out watching Liverpool or Everton. In any commercial organisation, in the middle of an industrial dispute, when it was unable to meet its requirements, the management would have been working


at the weekends. That was not happening in the passport office. Long before the industrial dispute arose—and there were good reasons for that dispute—there was a state of near chaos in the Liverpool passport office, and they were unable to meet the heavy summer demand.
The candidate organisations are generally monopolies and it is therefore important to ensure that there is a system to set performance standards. One cannot get a passport from anywhere other than a passport office. Those people who were shrewd enough to send their applications to the Belfast office before the dispute arose got their passports on time. In that respect it is not a monopoly, but one can get a passport only from the Government. A vehicle can be validly examined only by an inspector authorised by the Government. Many of the organisations listed in the White Paper are monopolies. We cannot simply create trading funds, and allow them to exploit their monopoly position to continue to provide a bad or an inadequate service. Therefore, it is important that trading requirements and strong performance standards are set and that they can be monitored by Parliament.
Some of the organisations that are already working under the trading fund arrangements—for example, Her Majesty's Stationery Office—would not survive for long in the real market place, or the public sector, if they engaged in the pricing arrangements that they have now. The White Paper, "The Financing and Accountability of Next Steps Agencies" is printed by HMSO, which claims that it has 29 pages. It has only 25 pages, as four are blank. The price of those 25 pages is £4·60. That is supposed to be commercial enterprise working in the public service. Clearly there is a long way to go to get the level of efficiency that a non-monopoly commercial organisation has to achieve to survive, and I would welcome any attempt to achieve that.
I emphasise that it is the monopolistic position that many organisations enjoy that makes it insufficient merely to set up a trading fund. If the Government-appointed agency is the only supplier—as it has to be for some things—it will take more than a trading fund requirement to ensure that the public get a satisfactory service, and that is what the Bill is about. The public should get satisfactory service at the lowest possible cost to the taxpayer, and the present situation does not ensure that.

Dr. Marek: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to reconsider his words. A satisfactory service is perhaps too low a standard. Let us have a good, first-class service for the public.

Mr. Beith: I am prepared to accept that qualification, although to my mind a satisfactory service would be getting a passport within a week, but a good service is to get it by return of post. The way that the terms have been used shows how standards have slipped over the years. The currency has become debased. I accept that a stronger term than "satisfactory" is needed. We want to ensure that a good service can be provided at reasonable cost. The present arrangements in many areas of the public service have not ensured that.
The trading funds system is appropriate to some areas of public service, but it will have to be backed up by strong performance standards, particularly when the Government are the monopoly suppliers.

Mr. James Paice: I believe that most right hon. and hon. Members welcome the Bill because it recognises that the role of the Civil Service is vital to Britain but cannot be divorced from the needs of the public; that has been one of the cornerstones of Government policy.
The Bill goes a long way towards trying to relate the structure of the Civil Service more closely to the needs of the people through the various trading funds and the staff that manage them. I think that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) was trying to make that point in his lucid speech.
The Bill sets out to expose Civil Service practice to some of the pressures of commercial practice, although it cannot be 100 per cent. successful in achieving that.
We listened for more than 50 minutes to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and he made a lot of spurious points. One was the work of ADAS, which does not appear in annex A of the trading funds. Many of the points the hon. Gentleman made demonstrated that he does not know much about the subject.
ADAS, in fact, brought in a charging mechanism to demonstrate the wealth of advice from a range of private bodies that is available to farmers, whatever the activity in which they are involved. Its introduction has shown that farmers, once they have to pay, prefer to pay for advice from private bodies that have kept up with modern developments in technology and work systems: the problem is not the charges, but the evidence that has emerged that what was required was not being provided. The hon. Gentleman should, perhaps, consult his hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), his party's spokesman on agriculture, I do not think that he will find much evidence of support for the suggestion of a subsidy to enable ADAS to provide a free service, as it used to.
It has become fashionable to regard civil servants as a cohesive group. We should not do so, however, for they are involved in a range of different activities, as is demonstrated by the number of possible agencies listed in annex A. They may be research or investigative scientists, clerks, historians, administrators or members of many other disciplines, and thus cannot be lumped together. All the agencies and candidate agencies have some impact on the public, and most have a considerable impact: the vast majority of staff are in employment or social security offices.
The overwhelming majority of civil servants are highly competent and capable. I do not subscribe to the theory that they are workshy and could not survive in the private and commercial sectors, although I know that many people hold that view; I had a good deal to do with civil servants in certain sectors before I came to the House, and I believe that the Bill will show that they are as competent as I consider them to be. The problems of poor service and insufficient accountability have been caused by the system that has operated for so many years—a system that stultifies initiative, discourages innovation of any kind and encourages people to believe themselves immune from accountability, disciplinary measures and even dismissal.
By allowing trading funds to be set up, the Bill will go a long way towards solving those problems, although it is bound to cause uncertainty among staff: everyone fears change, and many civil servants will doubtless wonder


what that change holds for them. While I do not dismiss their anxiety, I believe that in time it will be shown to be groundless. Trading funds will help to improve accountability, and will create conditions much more akin to those in the private and commercial sectors—conditions in which the individual can prosper. They will assist personal development and encourage the innovative processes that are so essential to a commercial operation.
I have, however, some anxieties about the Bill. First, I am keen that, where appropriate, civil servants who run the trading funds should be given terms and conditions of employment comparable with private-sector operations in the same sphere. However, while that may involve a considerable review of salary structure, it may also mean a weakening of the position of such staff—for instance, their protection against dismissal. We should remember that the Ibbs report criticised the centralised pay and conditions rules of the Civil Service for being outside the control of most managers and
structured to fit everything in general and nothing in particular".
I hope that the Government will not simply conclude that, with agency status, those responsible for operating the trading funds will still be civil servants, with Civil Service conditions and pay scales. Some of the agencies will have to compete for staff and in terms of the quality of their service, just like private-sector operations.
My other concern is competition. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has already made some of the points that I wanted to make. Simple responsibility for a fund will not achieve all that we would wish; financial targets—for returns on investment, for example—will not bring about all the desired results. We must go as far as we can towards creating competition, perhaps even breaking down some of the agencies into two or more groups so that they can compete among themselves—on a regional basis, for instance. We must try to engender competition wherever possible.
After a few years we may find that some of the agencies are not really needed, at least within the public sector, and if that happens so be it. The hon. Member for Wrexham wanted an assurance that the Government's proposal was not the precursor of privatisation or even abandonment. Perhaps, in view of the party that I represent, it is not surprising that I find it difficult to understand the ideology that the agencies should continue regardless, and that we should not consider privatising them. Such is the rate of change in Labour's policies that before many moons have passed its members may well suggest privatisation themselves—not, I hasten to add, that they will have the opportunity to do so.
I feel that we should question some aspects of the agencies listed in annex A, which will be prime candidates for the establishment of trading funds. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed mentioned Her Majesty's Stationery Office, and I should like to know why it is necessary for such an organisation to be in the public sector. As the hon. Gentleman emphasised, some of its provision can hardly compete with what we would expect from a private-sector equivalent.
I also wonder—this will be dear to the heart of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Civil Service—why we need a special college for civil servants. If we wish to encourage civil servants to operate in a commercial

environment, they should be trained by people who already work in such an environment, rather than by people trained under the system that we are trying to change.

Mr. Ian McCartney: Is not investment in the training of British managers in the private sector very low compared with our European competitors? The private sector's record of investing in the training of British managers is very poor.

Mr. Paice: As one would expect, the hon. Gentleman's comments are some years out of date. Management training in the United Kingdom has gone forward by leaps and bounds during the past few years. Private sector investment in training has increased by at least 50 per cent. in the last three or four years. That fact cannot be disputed. The hon. Gentleman needs only to check with the Confederation of British Industry, if he doubts it.
I do not suggest that British industrial management training right across the board is adequate. However, the ability of commercial training firms to train to the highest level has been proved throughout the United Kingdom. The companies that provide private sector management training could also provide it for civil servants.
The Queen Elizabeth II conference centre is a building of renown, especially to those of us whose offices are in Dean's yard or elsewhere in the conference centre's vicinity. I was surprised to find that it is listed. I wonder why the public sector is running the conference centre. I hope that in the near future it will be funded by a trading fund, to be followed shortly afterwards by privatisation.
I have already referred to the employment service as being one of the most important potential candidates for financing through a trading fund. It employs 34,000 civil servants and it is involved with the public. Members of Parliament receive many letters of complaint from constituents. They complain about how they have been dealt with by employment service employees. It is an essential part of the public sector, but it must remember that it is there to serve the public.
The fuel suppliers branch may employ fewer than 50 people, but one has to ask why there should be a fuel suppliers branch to provide a bulk fuel purchasing service to Government Departments. Surely a trading fund ought to be established so that the fuel suppliers branch can be got rid of altogether. A multitude of private sector companies could do that job.
Much has been said about passport office delays, but nothing has been said about Land Registry delays. During the last few years I have received many letters from people who have complained bitterly about Land Registry delays. When people want to move from one part of the country to another—usually to my constituency because of the thriving economy and low levels of unemployment—they find that it is difficult to do so. Delays are due to lack of accountability. Improvements must be made.
Property Holdings, which is responsible for the management of the Government's property portfolio, ought to be run in the same way as the private sector runs such a business. If it is cost effective for the Government to have their own property holdings, that is fine; I have no fundamental objection to that. However, if it is to be cost effective, Property Holdings must be staffed and run in


such a way as to make it competitive with the private sector. A trading fund would ensure that it could be compared favourably with the private sector.
As for the Training Agency—formerly the Manpower Services Commission—I had a great deal to do with that organisation before I became a Member of Parliament. The Training Agency is venturing into an area that, so far as I know, is unknown to the rest of the Civil Service. There has been the introduction of private management, through the development of training and enterprise councils. Private industry will set up its own councils. Some members of the Training Agency's staff will be seconded to the training and enterprise councils to carry out administrative, operational and executive functions. Civil servants will be responsible to the private sector management. It will be interesting to watch the experiment over the next few years. It will provide civil servants with the opportunity to demonstrate all those characteristics that I described earlier as being essential if the operation is to be commercial and serve the public.
Despite the implications of some of my remarks, I believe that the majority of civil servants are competent. They have the ability to compete in a much more commercial operation. Ultimately, however, their job is to provide a service to the public, whether it be across the counter at a Department of Social Security office or behind the scenes in a research laboratory. This enabling Bill will allow most of the agencies to operate in a way that will demonstrate clearly how effective and efficient they are. I hope that in a few years time we shall be able to introduce a tranche of Bills to privatise some of the agencies. As a first step towards privatisation, I welcome the Bill.

Mr. John Battle: This enabling Bill will provide the Government with enormous powers. Therefore, we are entitled to probe the Government's intentions. I should like to follow what was said by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) by asking a few detailed questions about some of the entries in the annex to the White Paper.
According to annex A, the Resettlement Agency
Provides resettlement units for people without settled way of life.
The social security IT services directorate
Provides computer and communication technology services for the DSS.
The social security benefits administration
Assesses, issues and administers social security benefits.
According to the Chief Secretary's speech, some of those services could be brought within the ambit of the Bill.
The Government announced in November the relocation of Social Security and Health Service departments to Leeds, involving 2,000 members of staff, from the chief executive down. That move has been welcomed in Leeds, and I hope that it is a sign of the Government's commitment to a regional policy. It is a key regional centre and the staff will get a warm Yorkshire welcome when they arrive in Leeds.
The Chief Secretary said that Government Departments are complex. Will the Resettlement Agency and the social security IT services directorate and the social security benefits administration, which are candidates for agencies in under Next Steps, be funded as trading agencies? Is it intended that commercial-style accountancy should be introduced in those departments?
The Resettlement Agency provides homes for people with no fixed abode. They will pay rent, for which they will get a receipt. Paragraph 4.14 of the White Paper says:
The powers extend only to bodies which generate receipts in respect of goods or services provided. Where there are no such receipts the powers could not be used. The effect is to exclude areas of Government where the payment is not directly related to the provision of the goods or services, or where such payments constitute less than half of the body's revenue … Thus for example the delivery of social security benefits, and tax assessment and collections are outside the powers.
I wonder whether the reference to collection only involves tax and whether all social security benefits are clearly outside the remit.
The social fund was a shift of policy from benefit as grant to benefit as loan—a loan which has to be repaid from benefit. I hope that there will not be a shift to commercial-style accounting in that area. Social security offices should offer a fair, efficient and just service to claimants who, through no fault of their own, need to make a claim. They have often been made to feel that they are victims or that they have committed an offence.
In a leader last January, The Times said:
Last year one of the brighter sparks in the Social Security Department introduced an impressive prospectus for change. It proposed to remove from London the processing and basic clerical tasks occasioned by claims for income support … It also urged the treatment of claimants not as enemies of the system but as citizens deserving efficient administration.
I hope that that will indeed be the case. The Department of Social Security recently introduced a new logo for its leaflets. It appeared as a smile. Some might argue in other debates that that smile is somewhat ironic in the light of benefit reductions. But as the Department is to move to the friendlier location of Leeds, let us hope that the service will be much more efficient and friendly rather than shift towards a business intent on shaming those who claim benefits. That is the type of improved management and efficiency that we would like.
I should be most grateful if the Chief Secretary would assure me that the Government have absolutely no intention, now or in the future, that any part of social security provision should be covered by this Bill.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: This is an excellent Bill. It takes forward much of what the Government have already done to reorganise the Civil Service. I fully support it and urge the House to vote for its Second Reading.
The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) was at pains to tell us that the Bill is worrying. More than anything else, the Bill shows up the differences of attitude between the two sides of the House. We look for efficiency and better cost management and see a role for the private sector. The Opposition want central control and maintain that the civil servant is always right and, as a result, must be left alone. If the hon. Gentleman plans to be a Minister, I urge him to be subjected to a compulsory session of "Yes Minister". Sir Humphrey Appleby could teach him quite a bit. Civil Servants can look after themselves extremely well.
When we consider the delivery of necessary services by the Government, the need for improvement is hammered home to us. I am a lawyer and must say that the Land Registry is a complete shambles. Solicitors carrying out


conveyancing experience great difficulty getting the proper documents, and getting certificates for leases takes far too long. House transfers are delayed most unnecessarily.
The same can be said for the driver and vehicle licensing centre at Swansea. Any solicitor or barrister who has applied on behalf of his client for a copy of a driver's licence for the magistrates' benefit and anybody who has applied for a new copy of his licence will know of the terrible problems there. The Liverpool passport office is on my constituency's doorstep. Many of my constituents who wanted to go abroad on holiday were caused great anxiety last year by the dispute there. That office has a history of inefficiency. Such difficulties must be tackled. The White Paper is an excellent document, and the Bill based on it is the way forward.

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Land Registry. Does he agree that one of the difficulties, to say nothing of the lack of resources for additional staff, is that people who try to sell homes to other people may find that they are involved in litigation about who pays the ground rent? Every day of the week, thousands of transactions involving the sale of ground rents are made in London. That causes huge delays in the Land Registry. The Government have failed to prevent such speculation, which creates difficulties for the Land Registry and the hon. Gentleman's clients.

Mr. Hind: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the transfer of freeholds, when the occupier is a leaseholder, is a big problem. I am sure that he is aware of the Lord Chancellor's proposals, based on the Australian and New Zealand model, to introduce a new style of ownership for flats in London. That will eventually do away with the problem he mentioned. The hon. Gentleman and I experience the same difficulties in our constituencies. The same is true for much of the north of England. I accept the need for reform, as does the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. McCartney: The Lord Chancellor's proposals relate exclusively to transactions in London. They do not affect transactions in the rest of the United Kingdom. This is not a party political issue. The House should find time to resolve this difficulty, which affects millions of potential purchasers each year.

Mr. Hind: As an active member of the all-party leasehold reform group, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join us—

Mr. McCartney: I am a member of it.

Mr. Hind: We are working with the Building Societies Association to bring forward a proposal such as that—

Mr. McCartney: I am the assistant secretary.

Mr. Hind: I said that the hon. Gentleman is an active member. He will come along and help.
The examples I have mentioned demonstrate the need for Next Steps agencies. A trading fund is the logical step for many of them—they provide services directly to the public.
The White Paper draws attention to the problems of monopolies. We should consider that problem carefully. I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) said about the list

of Next Steps agencies in the back of the White Paper. Do the Government need to be involved in many of the functions listed there? Could they not be done equally well by the private sector? I welcome the fact that the Government are considering privatising those functions in future. Many of them could be carried out just as well in the private sector.
The trading funds that will be set up for the Next Steps agencies will not in any way reduce accountability to Parliament. Paragraph 5(1) of the White Paper states:
Next Steps will involve no diminution in Ministerial accountability to Parliament. Indeed, the creation of Agencies will clarify managerial responsibilities and reinforce accountability to Ministers and to Parliament.
The majority of chief executives will be former civil servants. The hon. Member for Wrexham says that chief executives will feel under pressure to produce results and will not feel able to satisfy the public's need for service. But civil servants feel the same pressure and the same need to satisfy the public's requirements at the moment. That will not change except that the agencies will be treated individually. The Comptroller and Auditor General will publish a report which, along with the accounts, will be brought before the House of Commons so that we can scrutinise the operation of that part of the Civil Service. Today, much of it is subsumed into the whole and we never know how efficient individual parts of the Civil Service are. The report will provide us with a good opportunity to look at it. The funds will be created by affirmative order of the House of Commons and the chief executives will be subject to examination by the Comptroller and Auditor General and no doubt will be called before Select Committees when it is considered that matters need to be investigated by the House. In future these matters will be safe in the hands of the House and Ministers.
I now turn to more parochial considerations. Next Steps agencies will be important for the provinces of England, Wales and Scotland because they will be self-contained units with chief executives responsible directly to Ministers, so there is absolutely no reason why they need to operate in the south-east. Hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent northern constituencies will agree that we have a classic opportunity to move those agencies into the provinces to create jobs in areas of high unemployment.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: In Lancashire.

Mr. Hind: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. There is no reason why many of the agencies should not move north. A number of Department of Social Security offices are located in Blackpool and before it was privatised the new headquarters of Girobank was set up in the constituency of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) close to the constituency of the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). The Government have successfully transferred Civil Service jobs from the south-east to the north. That must continue. Given the technology and the communications that exist today, there is no reason why all the major offices of state should be located in the south-east of England. Next Steps agencies will be the beginning.

Mr. McCartney: rose—

Mr. Hind: Let me finish this point.
In the past six months I have had the privilege to serve in the Northern Ireland Office as a parliamentary private secretary. A similar situation exists in the Welsh Office where Ministers are based in London but can communicate with civil servants by video and by television link so that they can have meetings with civil servants who are 100 or 200 miles away. Those jobs will provide much-needed prosperity in the regions and should move out of the overcrowded south-east where Conservative Members are desperate to protect the green belt. Up north we have the infrastructure, the housing and the quality of life to absorb those jobs.
I note that the Minister for the Civil Service is in his place. I hope that he will take on board my comments. Part of St. Joseph's college, the seminary at Upholland, is in my constituency. It is available for such an organisation as a Next Steps agency and is close to the M6 and the M58. A Next Steps agency could be set up in a class II listed building, a magnificent Victorian building in 180 acres of parkland providing a superb standard of life, as anyone living in my constituency or in that of the hon. Member for Makerfield would agree.

Mr. McCartney: I agree that hon. Members on both sides of the House should continue their efforts to achieve the transfer of jobs northwards and to create initiatives to provide new jobs in the north. The hon. Gentleman and I have recently been involved in the privatisation of Girobank. He supported the privatisation process which nearly lost us jobs in the north-west from Britoil in Wigan. The battle was not only about privatisation but about retaining the jobs in the north-west after privatisation. The hon. Gentleman was silent in the argument about privatisation and the possibility of jobs being transferred. I shall not go into his difficulties at Upholland and the fact that his constituents are up in arms about the possibility of development, commercial or otherwise, at the seminary. It may be difficult for the hon. Gentleman in view of his small majority which will not be helped by his speech today as most of his majority is probably made up of civil servants in the passport office in Liverpool.

Mr. Hind: The hon. Gentleman referred to the problems at Upholland. Perhaps he will appreciate that it is an ideal centre for a Next Steps agency. West Lancashire district council, which is Conservative controlled, has rejected the proposals by the church to develop in green belt and recognises as I do that that college could be more sensibly used for such a development.
The trading fund which underpins the Bill will provide a financial framework which will cover the operating costs, receipts, capital expenditure, borrowing and net cash flow of the Next Steps agencies. Those that are suitable will find that it will provide a more commercial and disciplined approach to the delivery of Government services coupled with a greater accountability to Parliament for the results achieved. Where it is appropriate for such trading funds to be attached to Next Steps agencies—and that will not always be the case—it will result in improved performance and improved provision for the public which they will welcome and which I am sure will be welcomed by all Members of Parliament.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. McCartney. Are you ready?

Mr. McCartney: I was rather surprised because, to be perfectly frank, I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was here before me.

Mr. Speaker: Fair enough. Mr. Dalyell.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: It is a most unusual compliment, and it will be repaid.
May I make an extremely careful and hesitant comment on one of the matters raised by the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind)? He referred to civil servants and jobs in the new agencies. I do not know all the facts, but I should like to ask one question: are we sure that it is ethical these days for Mr. Patrick Brown of the Department of the Environment to go out of the Civil Service to the National Freight Corporation, back into the Civil Service, and now out again to the Property Services Agency? I stress that this is not a personal attack. I do not know all the facts, but it is high time that a Minister made a statement on the new ethics of the Civil Service.
I remember an enormous row when Sir Clifford Jarrett, who was permanent secretary at the Ministry of Pensions, got a job with a pension fund company. The then Cabinet Secretary had to decide whether his appointment was proper. Sir Clifford Jarrett had left the Civil Service, but it now appears possible for people to join, leave and rejoin the Civil Service.
This afternoon I asked the Attorney-General whether he would discuss with the director of the serious fraud office the propriety or otherwise of Coopers and Lybrand being commissioned by the Government to do a report on extremely important institutions—the Property Services Agency and the Crown Suppliers—when certain key people who are former employees of Coopers and Lybrand are the leaders in the management buy-out. That raises some pretty serious questions about governmental ethics. I see the Chief Secretary to the Treasury knitting his brow, but these are extremely delicate matters. A statement should be made on exactly what has changed in Civil Service ethics.
It is not every Saturday evening that I ring No. 10 Downing street, but I did so last Saturday to leave a message with one of the Prime Minister's secretaries. I said that in my opinion she should have made a statement to the House—the Minister of State, Privy Council Office has guessed on what subject—on a matter of enormous sensitivity, the protest by the First Division Association on guidelines. The First Division Association does not lightly protest, so when it does—I am not disparaging the Minister of State or being personally rude to him—the head of the Civil Service should at least make some comment.
In my speech I may ask some naive questions that may appear rather simple, but the Labour party has been in opposition for a long time. There was a time when many Members of the Opposition had recent ministerial experience, but since 1979, for reasons of which we are all aware, there has been a great change. I am not making a party point, but I think that, with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), I am the only Opposition Member present who has any experience of government. That lack of experience makes it much harder for Opposition Members to understand the pros and cons of what a Government are doing. Having


been exiled between 1974 and 1979 over devolution, it is more than 20 years since, as a parliamentary private secretary, I saw the inside of a Ministry.
I hope that hon. Members will forgive a little history, but I am interested in not only the Property Services Agency but the general subject. I recollect clearly—in another context I have had to work on the papers relatively recently—that the late Sir Otto Clark and the late Sir Leo Pliatzky, who were formidable civil servants, thought that they had persuaded a number of members of the Labour Government to set up something equivalent to the Property Services Agency. They certainly succeeded in persuading Lord Armstrong of the Midland bank, not Lord Armstrong of Ilminster. When those people said that the Government had to be themselves involved to make good decisions, they were not making simply a party political point.
There is a further general point to which I hope that the Chief Secretary will respond—I know that he is deeply interested in such matters. I shall leave out the privatisation of businesses because I understand that there is a party political difference over the privatisation of electricity and water, but in the case of the Crown Suppliers and the Property Services Agency, is the Chief Secretary absolutely persuaded that he is not trying to privatise, not a business, but a governmental function? Who will make the judgments that the Government must make?
I refer to a question that the Chief Secretary answered today. It says:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what architectural and architectural-related staff he has in the Treasury to make technical assessments of decisions by other Departments to use agents other than the Property Services Agency.
The first answer was a holding reply on 21 December. I make no complaint about that other than to say that if those proposals, which will begin to be considered upstairs tomorrow, had been properly thought out the question could easily have been answered. I have received a succession of replies from Ministers at the Department of the Environment saying "I shall answer as soon as possible", but if any thought had been given to the question an easy answer could have been written on the back of a postcard and answers to fairly obvious questions from me would have been unnecessary. The Chief Secretary replied to the question:
No staff in such specialisms are currently employed in the Treasury. Where Departments are free to use agents other than PSA for building and maintenance work, it is for them to decide on value for money grounds, and after the usual tendering and contract procedures have been observed, whether such agents, or PSA, should be employed.
Who makes those decisions? The PSA is a function of Government. Leo Pliatzky and many others regarded that as a great problem in the 1960s, and it has not gone away. In order to make sensible decisions there must be some proper expertise.
What are the plans for full commercial accounts for the PSA or its successors from 1991 onwards?
Who will supervise and check work in the private sector? How will an objective assessment be made? If a Department does not have the necessary expertise, I do not see how an objective assessment can be made. The

Government's line is that the new agency's main aim is to maximise profits for the owners, but where is the independent source of advice?
The construction industry is not exactly famous for its honesty and integrity. Someone must make judgments about substandard work, shoddy materials and unreliable surveys. I may be referring to ancient history when I say this, but I remember when I was a lowly person in a Department that was run by a formidable lady, Dame Evelyn Sharp. She cried out for expertise which even the Ministry of Housing and Local Government did not have at that time. We seem to be going back to that experience.
I do not claim that the PSA is a perfect organisation. It has done many good things, certainly outside the city of London, and my constituents and many others who work for it are proud of much of what they have done, but because of the nature of their work they are likely to make mistakes. I am asking the Treasury whether, from now on, each Department is to have a commissioning and supervisory section.
Are there to be mini-PSAs in each Department? If the answer is no, how are we to avoid increased costs, undetected corruption and a dramatic lowering of standards? There must be someone who is competent to make judgments. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), who has experience of local government, knows what I am talking about. The same thing applies in the running of a great city as in the running of national Government. There is a big question mark over whether any private agency can do that, let alone over the question of accountability to Parliament.
Let us take a specific example—valuation. We are told by the National Audit Office, and there is no reason to doubt it, that the value of PSA properties in 1982 was £3 billion. I can understand that, given the value of the Whitgift centre in Croydon, St. Christopher's house and Argyll house in Edinburgh and some 8,000 properties, although admittedly some are small. I am told—the Minister may say that I am wrong—that the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill, which is about to be considered in Committee, deals with more than £10 billion. Incidentally, when I have asked questions I have found that many people will talk—but only because post-Ponting they trust me not to reveal sources. I gather that there has been an edict—I do not know whether Ministers are responsible—to the effect that people should not talk about their work in the PSA and issues that relate to current events. That is all very well, but may I just say that we have had certain things to say about eastern Europe and leave it at that. It is unsatisfactory to put a gag on a legitimate subject of debate.
If the PSA is to be abolished, who in government is to decide what additional property is needed by any arm of the Civil Service? Is it to be the Civil Service Department? Surely someone centrally has to decide whether other departmental property may be useful. With privatisation of the PSA come 1992, or whenever it can be sold off—the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill deals with that privatisation—who will make a decision quickly and effectively on the disposal of surplus accommodation? The Treasury may be thought to have had some interest in this aspect.
Who is responsible for the strategy of reducing the amount of vacant space to the minimum possible? Who is to judge the operational fitness of the value of the estate by adequate maintenance?
I shall not go on endlessly but, for reference, will mention "Property Services Agency: Management of the Civil Estate," the summary and conclusions of the National Audit Office report. My impression since 1987 has been that the PSA regional organisations have improved greatly. For all I care, Ministers can take credit for that. But why upset the apple cart and create a situation where no one will do this vital job?
What has happened to the trading fund to give information to clients and Parliament? As for the PRS scheme in 1983 to make Departments aware of the accommodation costs and administration of their policies and programmes, how is it to be achieved, and does the interdepartmental committee remain in operation?
Paragraph 9(c) of the National Audit Office report states:
as old long-term leases fall to be renewed, the PSA has been faced with greatly increased rents and liabilities to regular five-yearly reviews".
Does that continue? This was a problem for the PSA's investment appraisal unit. Paragraph 9(f) of the National Audit Office report says:
the PSA's investment appraisal unit reported that in 1986–87 appraisals had been wrongly omitted in 16 out of a test of 35 defence and civil cases.
[Interruption.] Ministers may be becoming impatient, because all this is a bit uncomfortable. The system has been ill-thought-out, and these points are relevant to Ministers and to the legislation. The NAO report says:
the PSA is considering the introduction of commercial accounts and a trading fund to give clearer information to clients and Parliament.
That brings my point completely into order. The report says:
the saving on the PRS scheme accommodation charge is intended to provide occupying departments with sufficient incentive to surrender to the agency surplus land and buildings.
The Chief Secretary is wise not to intervene at this stage because this is an extremely difficult question for the Treasury. I am not persuaded that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment—the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope)—is more clever or more able than Treasury Ministers. [Interruption.] Treasury Ministers are probably thankful that they will not take the Bill through Committee, because it is a can of worms. Paragraph 12 of the NAO report asks whether the Departments
have sufficient incentive to identify surplus accommodation?
The answer is no.
The defence estate was managed by the PSA. Who is to manage it now? There was a considerable row in the 1970s, and again in the 1980s, when, apparently, the Prime Minister actually came down on the side of the PSA against the Ministry of Defence managing its own estate.
Ah, we are greatly fortunate to have the Secretary of State for the Environment present, because the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill is his Bill. As the Secretary of State has entered the Chamber, this would be the ideal opportunity to go through with him the Coopers and Lybrand report on what happened in relation to the PSA; I should like to check with him the history of all this.
Is it not true that the first report on the privatisation of the PSA and the Crown Suppliers, undertaken by a

Treasury official called Jeannie Turton and her colleagues—I think that those in the Box know something about this—came down against privatisation?
Is it not also true that a second report—which the Government refused to publish—from the central unit in the Treasury also came down against privatisation'? And is it not true that Dewi Jones also came down against privatisation, with certain qualifications? I know that I shall be corrected if my history is wrong.
Then the Government strongly told Coopers and Lybrand that the question was not whether the Crown Suppliers—which is a function, not a business—and the PSA should be privatised but how. Those were the terms of the question, on the Government's instructions.
Is it not also true—I am careful about privilege, and I say this, under privilege, in the form of a question—that the person who had most to do with the Coopers and Lybrand report on the TCS was Mr. Bob Etherington? Is it not also true that Mr. Bob Etherington has become the mainspring—the driving force—in the management takeover of the Crown Suppliers? I stand open to correction, and if I am wrong I shall give way to any of the four relevant Ministers who are doing me the courtesy of listening—the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Minister of State, Privy Council Office, who is responsible for the Civil Service, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. I ask any one of them to tell me whether I am right or wrong about Mr. Bob Etherington's position. I think that I am properly informed, although I see that a note is coming from the Box.
Let me explain the history of the Coopers and Lybrand report. In March 1987, two reports on the Crown Suppliers were submitted to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. The first, by Coopers and Lybrand in association with Samuel Montagu, discussed the feasibility of the privatisation of the Crown Suppliers and the second, by Dewi Jones, a consultant, looked into options other than privatisation.
Coopers and Lybrand was asked to determine the prospects for the successful privatisation of all or part of the Crown Suppliers, including the best means and forms of achieving that objective. Coopers and Lybrand took the view that, for the privatisation of the Crown Suppliers to be feasible, its lines of business would have to be capable, first, of commercial viability—sustaining adequate levels of profitability in free competition—and, secondly, of being successfully transferred from the public to the private sector. Do the Government think that those conditions, imposed by Coopers and Lybrand—itself asked to do a job by the Government for reasons, some of us might think, of political dogma—have been met?
In the meantime, Ministers have information, and I should certainly be interested to hear what they have to say about Mr. Bob Etherington's position. I can only assume that silence indicates that I am broadly correct, and so I give notice that I hope that the Secretary of State for the Environment will instruct the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment to attend the Committee tomorrow morning and say exactly what the position is. Some of us think delicate questions of Civil Service ethics are involved.
I ought to tell the Secretary of State for the Environment that at Question Time I asked the Attorney-General whether he is prepared to examine the role of Coopers and Lybrand in the privatisation of the


Crown Suppliers and discuss the ethical position with the director of the serious fraud office. I choose my words with extreme care. All this is extremely close—this is why I have been asking questions—to a variant of insider trading. If the Government are going to get involved in that kind of thing, they had better be extremely careful. As some individuals have found, insider trading is an extremely serious offence in this country. There really ought to be some explanation of how people can do a job for the Civil Service and then seemingly get into a position where it appears that they benefit. I am not in the habit of making personal attacks on individuals—still less, named individuals—under the cloak of privilege, but there ought to be some clear explanation of what is happening.
Coopers and Lybrand was asked to determine the prospects for the successful privatisation of all or part of the Crown Suppliers. The company's report opened with an overview of the Crown Suppliers, its organisation, aims and activities, and divided the organisation into three main divisions—product supply and services, transport and fuel. The prospects for privatising the whole organisation were seen to depend on the sum of the prospects of the three individual divisions rather than on the characteristics of TCS as a single entity. Are the Government happy about the organisation's break-up as a single entity?
I refer to the product supply and services heading. The main business line of the division is the supply of hard furniture. Coopers thought that it would be feasible to privatise that activity, together with the related activities of floorings and furnishings supply and contract furnishing services. Coopers thought that this core business, which would supply both own design and trade pattern products, had the potential to compete successfully within an established furniture distribution industry. It could defend a high share of public sector demand and additionally develop a share of selected markets within the private sector. That was Coopers' view.
Then we had the Second Reading debate. I listened to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), which, although long, was not over-long as it contained matters of considerable substance. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington may not be the most popular Member of the House with Conservative Members, but when he makes long speeches he always deserves an answer. I do not share his views on every subject that he has raised, but over the past few years I have learned that he had better be answered.
During a 50-minute speech on Second Reading, my hon. Friend asked delicate and awkward questions about furniture supply, but until now the answer has been the proverbial lemon. The question has not been answered. The whole purpose of Parliament is to get answers. For all I know, there may be answers to my hon. Friend's questions, but they have not been forthcoming. I am extremely sorry that my hon. Friend cannot serve on the Commitee as he is already serving on the Committee that is considering the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. I give notice to the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State that I will find ways in Committee to go over, point by point, my hon. Friend's questions on furniture. We will not get far until we receive satisfactory answers.
Coopers and Lybrand thought that a major change in operating style between the Crown Suppliers and a privatised core business would be needed to adapt to a commercial environment. The business represented a relatively high proportion of the division's current revenues that could operate within the private sector on a relatively small proportion of current resources and assets. From the Bill it appears to the Opposition—although we may be wrong—that that has not been agreed. It reveals the nature of trading funds and how the Government propose to operate in that sector.
On the basis of Coopers and Lybrand's own conditions, the Government's scheme is unsatisfactory. Not all of the Crown Suppliers' activities could be privatised. For example, the procedures undertaken by the Crown Suppliers reassured customers that procurement was carried out in a manner acceptable to the Government. That added value formed part of all procurement activity and could not be privatised. The Government would not wish to rely on a private sector for that service and compliance with EEC or GATT regulations might not be possible for a private sector company.
The Treasury deals with the EEC on those matters. Have its proposals for the Crown Suppliers gained agreement in Brussels? I am told that there are real international difficulties with our Community partners and that certain aspects of the proposals for the Crown Suppliers may not have the agreement of the EEC Commission. The Treasury certainly does not yet have the agreement of the American air force, which is deeply concerned about security.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) is an expert on security and he will be leading for the Opposition in Committee. I am entitled to follow up one of my written questions on the American air force, which I understand has not agreed to the new arrangements and is not persuaded about the security arrangements within the Government's privatisation proposals. The American air force should not determine Government policy, but there should be some serious answers detailing its objections. Will they be met, and how can they be met? What is the legal ruling in respect of the EEC and the American air force?
Even Coopers and Lybrand said that certain lines of business could not be feasibly privatised such as Defence Contracts Organisation contracts, equipment product categories, procurement of low value products, contracted services and security furniture workshops. DCO contracts are resource intensive and would not be commercially viable in the long term. Do the Government agree with Coopers and Lybrand or not? It also said that it felt that the arrangement of DCO contracts was a valuable service that should be retained within Government. Some of those activities are highly specialised and would not readily transfer to the private sector. The transfer of the supply of security furniture would not be acceptable to the Government.
What arrangements are being made for Government transport in the four areas of operations—vehicle hire, the interdepartmental despatch service, the Government car service and vehicle workshops? All could be successfully privatised with the exception of parts of GCS and the Nine Elms workshop, which would be retained to provide high security maintenance. All feasible areas could transfer either by sale as a going concern or by closure and contracting out. In the case of the allocated fleet, where


continuity would be helpful, a transfer of vehicles and drivers to the relevant departments would be appropriate. In particular, the vehicle hire business would represent an attractive proposition in the private sector where it could free itself from the capital restraints of vehicle ownership and thus compete more effectively.
Coopers and Lybrand said that it was not feasible or appropriate to transfer to the private sector the provision of high security chauffeur-driven vehicles, the peripheral activity of secure mail dispatch and secure journeys from the pool. The overriding consideration was security. Although the security could not be reasonably privatised, Coopers and Lybrand said it could be operated by another public sector body such as the police force.
In future, will the Minister for the Civil Service accept Coopers and Lybrand's advice and he driven in Government cars by the police? If not, why do the Government turn down the advice of their own expensive advisers? What is the Government's position on the question of sauce for the goose being sauce for the gander'? Are Government Ministers to be treated differently?
Hansard will show that I have posed some careful questions. I hope that proper answers will be given in Committee. I have no record of filibustering on any Bill, taking time unnecessarily or speaking for too long, thereby keeping out my colleagues. I warn the Government that some of us will be exceedingly persistent until we obtain answers to our questions. As I have named Bob Etherington and referred to Patrick Brown, it might be better if, in his reply, the Minister referred to the position of those gentlemen.

Mr. Keith Mans: I was going to make a few detailed points about the Bill, but as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) did not cover any of those points, I will be brief because I know that other hon. Members want to speak. I hope that the hon. Member for Linlithgow does not mind if I do not follow his points because I could not see the relevance of many of them to this debate. We are talking about Next Steps agencies. Paragraph 2.6 of the White Paper states:
Next Steps is primarily about those operations which are to remain within Government"—
that is, operations that will not be privatised. I believe that the hon. Member for Linlithgow was referring primarily to the Property Services Agency which will certainly be privatised if the Bill is passed.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) should look carefully at the Bill. It is for the Chair and not for him to allow me to make my points. I am sure that the hon. Member will concede that it is for the Chair to take that decision.

Mr. Mans: I was not in any way commenting on the relevance of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow. I said simply that I was not going to follow them because I believe that the main point of the Next Steps initiative is associated with the creation of trading funds and not with the points made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow.
I was very interested in the contributions of the hon. Members for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed was right to maintain that if the

initiative resulted in a better service for consumers and the people using the services that are to become agencies, the initiative should be welcomed. I agree with that.
As far as I could follow them, I would not agree with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Wrexham. It seems to be Labour party policy at the moment not to disband any of the agencies that we are going to create or have already created. Rather, Labour will not create any more agencies from those that currently have candidate status. The Labour party appears to be worried about committing itself to anything at least for the next year or two. It was very interesting that the hon. Member for Wrexham said nothing positive about the Bill. He did not give us Labour's view of the Bill. He seemed to say that Labour would leave things as they are and that the creation of trading funds would not lead to a better service for consumers. That was about all that I could understand from the contribution of the hon. Member for Wrexham.
I completely disagree with the hon. Member for Wrexham. The creation of trading funds and of the wider commercial climate is a prerequisite for a better service for those who require it from those agencies. Before we can decide the level of service and the amount of resources that are to be provided, we must know exactly what it will cost. The creation of trading funds will go some way towards achieving that.
The list contained in annex A of the White Paper is relevant. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) referred to the fuel suppliers branch. It is odd that an agency designed to cut expenditure and to ensure that we purchase fuel most economically for the public sector does not know how much money it is spending—according to the annex—or the number of people it employs. If nothing else, the Next Steps agencies will ensure that people will look more accurately at what things cost.
The Next Steps agencies will affect the RAF training organisations and the service schools in north-west Europe. Under the current financial structures the figures are not separately identifiable. The RAF does not know the exact cost of its training or of providing school facilities in north-west Europe. If nothing else, the initiative to create trading funds and new agencies will act as a discipline on those involved in those functions to ensure that they know how much it costs to provide those services. That must be a prerequisite to ensure that the services are provided efficiently and economically to the public and to the users of those services.
I welcome the Bill because it will increase accountability and the opportunity for scrutiny. I hope that it has a speedy passage through the House.

Mr. Ian McCartney: I want to make a short contribution about two aspects of the White Paper. Before I became a Member of this House I was involved in running a very large local authority which had a budget well in excess of £100 million a year. Even with restrictions on local government expenditure, with that level of resources we provided finance and accountability in the construction of services and in their delivery. We had methods which could be deployed to improve value for money and efficiency and at the same time ensure that that efficiency and value for money was governed by the need


to provide services instead of a need to achieve a financial target imposed on particular aspects of local authority activities.
Against that background I want to consider the White Paper and the proposals in the Bill. I want first to refer to the Liverpool passport office about which several hon. Members have expressed a rather jaundiced view. I believe that if the employees in that passport office had not acted as they did last summer, the Government would still not have taken steps to improve the service and administration of that office. The staff brought their views to the public about the need to improve the working of the office and the level of manpower resources that should have been allocated to provide the service.
Sometimes when we debate local government services or the privatisation of services currently run by civil servants, the prerequisite for arguing for that privatisation as voiced by Conservative Members is an attack on the integrity, capability and work ethic of the people working in those services. In the final analysis, very few people who work in the public sector do so as a result of a malevolent feeling towards the people for whom they provide the service. The staff working under trying circumstances in the Liverpool passport office were the catalyst for the changes. They wanted to improve the service and we should remember that instead of attacking them when they cannot respond to our debate.
Annex A of the White Paper refers to the planning inspectorate which, according to the White Paper,
Carries out public inquiries and appeals on planning, housing, highways, and other matters.
It also deals in two ways with rights of way, pathways, bridleways, the change of use of property, opencasting and other mineral extractions. First, they are dealt with in the time-honoured fashion of a public inquiry. The local authority may take a decision which is appealed against and the Secretary of State refers that to a public inquiry. Following that, the Secretary of State will determine whether he accepts, rejects or amends in part the recommendation of his inspectorate. Secondly, it deals with written appeals against local authority decisions. Both parties submit written evidence to the inspectorate, and the inspectorate then makes a recommendation to the Secretary of State.
For two main reasons, over the past few years the work of the planning inspectorate has been made difficult. First, many planning inquiries have had to be held. Secondly, local communities are far more aware of environmental changes caused by housing and industrial planning applications. In past decades, planning applications were not publicly scrutinised, but they are now challenged and scrutinised by the public. As a result, local authorities take more account of a community's views than they did previously. There is a huge backlog of appeals before the planning inspectorate. I refer to written appeals and to a substantial number of appeals that are the subject to public inquiry.
Some appeals do not relate only to small matters such as a change of use of land for housing. In my constituency, a recent planning inquiry related to opencast mining and the Secretary of State's power to impose a mineral plan on Greater Manchester county. That mineral plan included policies on the extraction of coal, shale, sand and other minerals associated with opencast mining. There was a

huge number of objections from local residents, Members of Parliament, heritage and environmental groups, and local authorities. Because of the backlog in the inspectorate's work, an outside planning inspector was appointed. Also, because of that backlog, the inspectorate appoints inspectors to conduct particular inquiries. In some instances that system can work satisfactorily, particularly when the inquiry reports in one's favour. However, there are instances in which an inspector has a similar background to that of an applicant. That happened in the case to which I referred.
The Government must recognise the need to provide resources for independent professional planning advice. Planning inquiries should be carried out in the most professional, independent and thorough way possible. Intolerable burdens will be placed on the inspectorate if it is included in the Next Steps initiative.
What is meant by competition in the planning inspectorate? The hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) is chary and wary about North-West Water polluting Morecambe bay. Does he believe that he has a better chance of preventing what is happening if competition is introduced into the planning inspectorate?
What is the role of competition in such activities? Can a Conservative Member provide technical, professional and accountable reasons why the introduction of competition into the planning inspectorate will assist the Secretary of State, local authorities or those who regularly use the system? The Government's White Paper is dogma. It is simply a list of organisations that the Government consider necessary to opt out as part of an overall policy to privatise. It fails to take account of other aspects of Government policy.
I do not believe that Conservative Members who have an interest not just in planning matters but in the environment do not want the House to retain the accountability and independence of the planning inspectorate and ensure that it operates outside the confines of the financial limitations which would be placed on it by a policy of competition. If the planning inspectorate operates at a substantially lower level than hon. Members would like, either in terms of the number of planning application inquiries that it conducts annually or the quality of its decision making, or if it does not operate in the public's interest, they should look at the reasons for the planning inspectorate's difficulties.

Mr. Hind: If the hon. Gentleman reads the White Paper carefully he will see that not every Next Steps agency will have a trading fund and that not all of them will be privatised or even considered for privatisation. Common sense dictates that the Department appoints inspectors on the basis that they are independent and quasi-legal and are able to make important judgments for the public. That cannot be open to competition. The Government would be reluctant to consider a trading fund, never mind privatisation.

Mr. McCartney: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his perceptive intervention. Why are they included in the document if it was never the Government's intention to include such activities of the Department of the Environment? It only highlights the Government's incompetence. The White Paper was not published on a wing and a prayer. The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) shakes his head. He made some valid points. I


agree with them all except for one important one that appears in the White Paper. The inspectorate is being considered as a "First Steps" agency and could be considered for privatisation. If the hon. Gentleman agrees with me he should not support measures such as hiving off the planning inspectorate of the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I have taken the opportunity to look at the White Paper. One must consider some aspects which will be imposed on the planning inspectorate. Even if this is simply an exercise in accountability, let us consider what is being suggested. We are dealing with the legislation as it stands and, according to the White Paper, the planning inspectorate is in the front line. Paragraph 5.10 of the White Paper talks about,
a summary of key targets for the future.
What does that mean in terms of the planning inspectorate when the inspectorate deals with matters put before it by the Secretary of State for the Environment on behalf of local authorities or by the Secretary of State himself in relation to activities by his Department? At no time can the planning sector of the Department of the Environment be able to target future activities because its work is demand driven in the sense that the demand for inquiries arises from the activities of local authorities and the Secretary of State.
Paragraph 5.10 of the White Paper also talks about,
a report of performance against financial, efficiency and quality of service targets over the past year, set against previous trends".
What is meant by "report of performance"? Does it relate to the way in which inquiries are carried out and the nature of the decision that is taken? The hon. Member for Wyre and his hon. Friends who support such claptrap—

Mr. Mans: Why is the hon. Gentleman voting against it?

Mr. McCartney: I have no problem about that because the points that I am making are highly relevant. A debate about the environment should be open-handed. We are talking about not introducing competition into serious matters, and in such a serious debate we do not need silly schoolboy quips. The hon. Member for Wyre is on record about a planning matter in his constituency.
What is meant by "a report of performance" in relation to the planning inspectorate? The planning inspectorate can be judged only by the nature of the decisions that it takes. Every one of those decisions has to be approved or amended by the Secretary of State irrespective of whether it is about the building of a petrochemical plant or whether a new bridleway should be built between two villages. The spectrum of activity in the Department is such that the Secretary of State is involved in every planning inquiry or written objection to his Department. In no circumstances could the Bill be used to regulate and improve the activities of the inspectorate. I hope that the Government will rethink the whole concept of some of the organisations and activities included in Next Steps agencies. I oppose the Government politically but the general public will also start to ask questions about the validity of Government policy when they see the possibility of an independent planning inspectorate being hived off to an agency and the possibility of it going to the private sector.
The Government must step back for a moment and rethink their ideology about some of the activities of public sector bodies. These bodies are in the public sector

for good reasons. One is because of the nature of the work that is carried out and the requirement for Parliament to retain accountability. Not only planning bodies but health, safety and training organisations are in the public sector for very good reasons. They are there not because of Socialist dogma but because of long tried and tested experience.
Some aspects of life are better organised through public accountability and cannot be left to market forces and driven by competition. That is at the heart of our opposition to the Bill. The Government see a need to create competition irrespective of the work carried out by the agencies, the need for parliamentary accountability and the conflict that is caused in the Department of the Environment. The Government want to privatise everything in sight.
Over the last 10 years the Government have used public expenditure cuts and privatisation to try to impose Next Steps agencies on local authorities. In my constituency the Wigan metropolitan council has had imposed on it privatisation of its cleaning and waste disposal services. Its services for waste disposal made a profit for ratepayers last year of over £3 million. The council is trying to protect those services and jobs and the Government are trying to impose a local government form of Next Steps agencies by which people are directly employed by a company—a "hands-off" arrangement—which runs the services for the local authority in competition.
Such things are done for the dogmatic reasons of the Secretary of State and have nothing to do with the improvement of services or accountability to the public. However, they have everything to do with hiving off profitable parts of public services to the private sector which looks to the quick buck at the expense of the long-term needs of the community. Following this debate, I wonder whether the hon. Members for Wyre and for Lancashire, West will be able to defend to their constituents the privatisation and hiving off of such an important body as the planning inspectorate, with all its consequences.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I am grateful for this opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate. I sense that the issues have been well and truly thrashed out and although there is a low growl of discontent from the Opposition I do not think that the Bill will be pressed to a vote.
The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) opened for the Opposition and his speech was briefer than some of those that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and I remember from the Finance Bill Committee. I think that the hon. Member said that it was a technical matter and I endorse that. We are not following the route that the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) seemed to follow in his eloquent speech that the Bill is about privatisation. It may come to privatisation and there are aspects of the agencies which I hope will lead to that, but that is not the predominant thrust of the Bill. Its purpose is to improve the quality of public service that is made available to our constituents.
I strongly support the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) who spoke about the need to extend the process to the Ministry of Defence. He identified one or two possibilities.


I, too, believe that it could go a great deal further. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) talked about the Training Agency and I endorse the important points that he made. There is a critical role over the next 10 years and beyond for the Training Agency. There has been a 30 per cent. drop in the number of 18-year-olds in my constituency and there is a critical need to encourage more women in Nottinghamshire to go back to work. My hon. Friend's comments were extremely helpful in emphasising that aspect of the Training Agency.
Some hon. Members said that some agencies may need to relocate. I hope that if they do so they will come to Nottingham. There are too few national and quasi-national agencies there and I should like to see more. It is especially helpful that my right hon. Friend who will respond to the debate knows Nottingham well and while wearing his other hat as the Minister for the Arts has seen the tremendous depth and breadth of the cultural and artistic activities that go on there. I hope that he will consider it a suitable place for many agencies to relocate in future.
The Bill seeks to extend the powers of the Government to create trading funds to finance central Government activities. Perhaps the measure has not caught the imagination of the general public as readily as it should have done.

Mr. Mans: Not yet.

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right. As I said earlier, the measure will have a key effect on major public services. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East said, the Bill does not seek in any way to allocate fault or attack the Civil Service. Civil servants are saddled with a system that does not work effectively either in their interests as employees or in the interests of the public who receive the service.
As I flicked down the list in the annex to the White Paper this afternoon, four agencies particularly caught my eye. They were the driver and vehicle licensing centre, the Land Registry, the passport office and Companies House. Three of those are largely covered by related receipts, as defined in the White Paper. One of them is not. I am particularly pleased to hear that Companies House is an early candidate for trading fund status.
The majority of Government activities are not suitable for trading fund status, as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said in his opening speech. However, 20 per cent. of Government agencies are suitable. We want that 20 per cent. to embark as rapidly as possible on the route to trading fund status. Why should we seek trading fund status for those important agencies? There are a number of key reasons. First, proper commercial disciplines should be passed on to the organisations. That brings with it a degree of self-management. The improvement and motivation of individuals is extremely important and brings initiative and some concept of size. Small is beautiful in many of the organisations. We want to encourage employees not to see themselves as part of a great amorphous mass.
The Bill is not entirely a cost-cutting measure, as some Opposition Members suggested. It is partly a cost-cutting measure, but, above all, it aims to improve the quality of

service to the public and the efficiency of the agencies. My right hon. Friend said in his opening speech that £3 billion had already been saved by such measures.
The criteria for suitability laid out in the White Paper emphasise the matters that are really important. It is emphasised that decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis. The criteria recognise that it is not only a matter of revenue and expenditure and that the importance of service to the public is predominant. There must be a genuine separation of activity where one Government Department supplies another. As far as possible we must engender genuine competition. That, too, is extremely important.
There must be a commitment to substantial and valuable improvements in performance. It is right that the full accounts should come before the House of Commons as well as reports on whether targets are being met and details of new targets for subsequent years so that we can judge the effects of those targets and ascertain whether they are being met.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle spoke of the importance of adequate detail so that we can make those judgments. I understand that the Treasury will report on the general trends in the use of trading funds and assess their effectiveness. That, too, must be welcomed as part of the parliamentary process.
Some agencies may be suitable for privatisation. I hope that there will be many, but I do not believe that that is the critical judgment. The criterion must be to provide a better service. As the hon. Member for Wrexham said, we must be accountable to the consumer. I believe that that view is common to both Conservative and Opposition Members.
I mentioned four particular agencies which could provide a better service to the public than they do now. I emphasise that I do not blame the civil servants for being saddled with a system that does not work effectively. I mentioned the passport office. It is a demoralised service. All hon. Members have had to deal with the problems of constituents who find at the last minute that they do not have a passport to go on holiday. We all know that the system does not work effectively. There have been problems with the Land Registry. Everyone knows that buying and selling a house is a particularly stressful aspect of life. The failings of the Land Registry are legion and we must do something about them. In my former existence I worked in the City so I know the inadequacies of Companies House. It could do much better as a result of the process outlined in the Bill.
The driver and vehicle licensing centre, too, has legion inefficiencies and difficulties. All the organisations that I have mentioned will benefit greatly from the process that we are setting in motion today. The aim is to make changes in the interests of improved management, efficiency and effectiveness. The Bill is not an attack on the Civil Service but an attack on a system that does not work. It is a significant opportunity to provide a better service to the public, more job satisfaction for the people who work in the agencies and better value for money for taxpayers and those who pay for the services. I greatly welcome it and hope that it will speedily become law.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Nothing is wrong in the passport office, Land Registry or driver and vehicle licensing centre that could not be remedied by an increase


in the number of staff. The Government have curbed appointments of staff in the Land Registry office which, combined with an increase in activity, has produced delays. It is not the fault of the hard-working civil servants. The responsibility must be laid at the door of the Government, who have made a sustained attack on the Civil Service over the past 10 years and are proud of it. Ministers repeatedly make claims about the number of staff that they have sacked. The blame is fairly and squarely at their door.
I shall make a few brief remarks about the relationship between the Bill—which is not a clear piece of legislation —and the Act that it amends, the Government Trading Funds Act 1973. The Bill puts a different emphasis on consultation and the obligation on the Minister to consult before making an order. The 1973 Act placed a duty on the Minister to consult appropriate persons. That meant that the Minister had to approach appropriate persons. The definition of "appropriate persons" was left to the Minister and was subject to judicial action in the courts if the range of appropriate persons was unnecessarily narrow.
The Minister was required to consult people. That has been subtly changed. The Bill now provides:
he shall take such steps as appear to him to be appropriate to give such an opportunity to such persons as appear to him to be appropriate.
In other words, the Minister stays in his office and causes a notice to be put in a newspaper, specialist newspaper or magazine and takes whatever steps he deems appropriate. People then have to go cap in hand to the Minister to make representations to him. That is a change of emphasis which was not necessary because the traditional position where the Minister was obliged to consult appropriate persons is entirely adequate and satisfactory. No doubt the Minister will explain the reason for that subtle change of emphasis.
I am sorry that I was not present for the Minister's opening speech. I was attending a Committee dealing with a Bill during the relevant time. The Government and Conservative Back Benchers, with their Government-supplied briefs, have made great play of parliamentary accountability. Although not particularly in this Bill, there has been a significant removal of parliamentary accountability by a conversion from a consensus measure in 1982. I regretted it very much at the time and voted against it in the parliamentary Labour party. The Consolidated Fund has been removed from parliamentary accountability. Payments into the fund are required by the Bill. If the Bill becomes an Act, that payment will enable Members to debate the measure in a proper Consolidated Fund debate and to obtain the necessary votes to initiate a debate in the Chamber.
Now that the Consolidated Fund debate has been changed into a series of Adjournment debates selected by the Speaker with the time allowed for each debate set by the Speaker, the opportunity for detailed examination on the basis of votes both in the Consolidated Fund debate and others has been diminished. I also regret the change because under the previous operation of the Consolidated Fund debate the House disciplined itself well. If the debate was on a wide and important subject, there was an opportunity for many hon. Members who were interested to take part in the debate. If the debate was a narrow one, it lasted only half an hour. The House was well disciplined.
We now have limitations imposed upon us. When there could be a long debate on a wide-ranging subject we are limited to three hours. I regret that the Consolidated Fund

procedure has been changed. There was no need for any change to be made, but on one morning the Government found it awkward to secure a closure. They could not get 100 Conservative Members to support the closure motion and so they decided, as it were, to shift the Consolidated Fund. The Opposition of the day—mistakenly, in my view —said to themselves, "We shall be in government one day and we might find it awkward to get a closure, so we shall agree to what the Government propose." As a result, a real element of accountability was knocked to one side. That cannot be attributed to the Bill, but it is a relevant factor and a continuing source of concern to me.
The Bill proposes that section 6 of the Government Trading Funds Act 1973 should be changed. The section provides an order-making power and requires that the establishment of a trading fund must be by way of affirmative resolution. That is the main pre-requisite of the section, and that is retained in clause 2(3), which sets out some changes to section 6 and the order-making powers of the 1973 Act.
As I have said, the establishment of a trading fund must be by way of affirmative order, and that means the tabling of a resolution on the Floor of the House for approval. This is extremely important. We must bear in mind, however, that there can be debate for only one and a half hours. Given the length of speeches that have been made on many occasions by Front-Bench spokesmen on both sides of the Chamber during the passage of affirmative orders, there has been only about half an hour left for Back-Bench Members to cross-examine the Government. Even though we say that an affirmative resolution in support of a statutory instrument is a useful procedure —the resolution is for debate on the Floor of the House, the Government have to secure its support and there must be a debate—it provides only a limited opportunity to question the Government and we should not elevate it beyond its importance.
Other powers proceed by negative procedure, including a Henry VIII clause. If some hon. Members are not aware of that term, I should explain that it is given to the power that is handed to Ministers to change primary legislation by order without any further primary legislation being required. We must remember that they is a great power. It is a relatively trivial one in respect of the Bill, but the sums that are involved for trading funds--the position is similar in the 1973 Act—can be altered, when the Bill is enacted, by a negative procedure instrument that is issued by a Minister. That is less than satisfactory.
The Government said that they would take legislation off the backs of the people. They told us that they would remove the weight of legislation which they claimed, in 1979, was burdening the people and preventing the enterprise culture from burgeoning forth. As they are fond of making comparisons with the Labour Government, let it be generally understood that they are producing more statutory instruments than their predecessors. The volume of statutory instruments is so great that it has become the primary source of legislation. In the past 18 months the Government have produced 23 Acts with Henry VIII clauses, includng the Education Reform Act 1988, which was a major piece of legislation. Given the Government's majority, we have, unfortunately, given Ministers the power to change primary legislation without introducing new primary legislation.
In a better ordered world, the Government would hve to return to the House to produce further primary


legislation to alter the legislation that was already on the statute book. Should not the Mother of Parliaments be the Parliament that sets an example to the rest of the Commonwealth, for example? It should do so, of course, but it does not. At the end of last year we had the opportunity to examine the procedures of other Commonwealth legislatures. Delegates came to London from 18 Commonwealth countries, including Pakistan, which we welcomed back into the Commonwealth after the restoration of democracy following the removal of the military junta and the election in which President Bhutto was elected.
Delegates, particularly the ones from Australia and New Zealand, made it clear that the power of scrutiny of delegated legislation is a real one in their legislatures. They told us that they can hold up the application of legislation if a Minister is found to be abusing his or her powers. Nothing like that exists in our legislation. We are building up a huge volume of subordinate legislation without any sort of adequate scrutiny being available to us. I am concerned, for example, that under clause 2 the Minister is allowed to change the maximum sum provided for by means of a negative procedure instrument.

Mr. Beith: If the hon. Gentleman wants a vivid example of what has happened and of the drift that has taken place, he has only to look at the end of today's Order Paper. When the debate has come to an end the House will be asked, for the first time in my recollection, to vote forthwith on the amendable Census Order 1988. Previously such orders have been debated on the Floor of the House. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight a dangerous trend, even in the detailed circumstances of the Bill.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for providing that example. I am aware that the Census Order was considered in Committee. I am aware also that several amendments were tabled—it was an unusual order—and I pressed for the amendments to be considered. I hope that the minority parties can somehow obtain the services of one of their Members to serve on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which they appear not to have been able to do up to now. I think that the Committee serves a useful purpose and the hon. Gentleman's remarks highlight his concern. I hope that he will be able to spread his concern to other Members of the Liberal party, the Liberal Democrat party and the other sorts of party which he helps to represent.
The issue of Henry VIII clauses is not often raised in the House. We should talk about it more, and it is my intention to do so. I have been inspired, at least in part, because it seems that other legislatures have proper and adequate scrutiny. The reality is that a Minister will not be much involved in an order-making power. A civil servant will present him with the order and he will say, "Minister, will you approve this? We must secure the order. We are running close to the limit and we need another £500 to be added to it. That should see us all right for the next two or three years." The Minister signs the order and the civil servant goes away.
The order goes before the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. If it is to proceed by way of the negative procedure—that is the procedure that will be used

to increase the moneys available to the trading funds—and if the Opposition think that it is a dangerous measure or an unusual use of such a measure, for example, they will table a prayer. If the Government follow the usual pattern, they will provide time for the prayer to be debated if it is signed by Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople. If a prayer were to be signed by a group of Back-Bench Members who have a particular concern, 100 to 1 it will never be heard. The majority of instruments, including the potential instrument that is referred to in the Bill, have little chance of being debated. It is just not good enough that they can be pushed through.
I should like an assurance from the Minister that in Committee, and whenever primary legislation is being dealt with, Ministers will have to cast their eyes over the legislation. They will, of course, be briefed by civil servants. It could be a simple one-section measure, and it would be easy to secure its passage. In primary legislation, however, Ministers conduct its passage on Second Reading, in Committee, on Report and so on. That means that Ministers are much more personally involved in the legislative process. Such a procedure would mean that the increase in the maximum sums available to trading funds would be dealt with in a more elaborate way. With the negative procedure process, which is implicit in the alterations that will be made to section 6 of the 1973 Act, the chances are that the instrument will never be debated.
If the Government are really concerned about parliamentary accountability, they should say, "We know that there are difficulties over allocating time on the Floor of the House; there always are. But we will ensure that the Bill is amended in Committee to bring its order-making powers in line with those establishing a trading fund, and that any increase in the maxima allowed for the total, global trading funds sum will be by affirmative resolution and not by the residual power"—which, under section 6 of the 1973 Act, is the negative procedure.
I hope, though not with great expectation, that the Minister will give an assurance of that kind. The reality is that both the Administration and the Civil Service bureaucracy, as well as Ministers, find it easier to get negative procedure instruments through this House and therefore more convenient. We say that public accountability, not convenience, should be an Administration's main criterion. The Government have made an issue of public accountability, saying that the procedure will provide for more parliamentary accountability. The Minister now has an opportunity to say, "We are determined to ensure parliamentary accountability, and affirmative instruments will be our watchword."

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): I am glad to be associated with the Bill because it is not only important in itself but must be seen against the background of the Government's Next Steps policy and the important reforms that are taking place in the Civil Service. The Bill provides the first opportunity for the House to have a wide-ranging debate on the Next Steps reforms in the Civil Service, which are of great importance and will do a great deal to improve further the management of the large resources for which the Civil Service has responsibilities.
I am glad that the debate has allowed right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House to speak on a wide


range of issues relating to the reforms. There were constructive and supportive speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice), for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), for Wyre (Mr. Mans) and for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell). We heard speeches also —some of them more constructive than others—from Opposition Members.
I was astonished by the remarks of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), and at his reaching the conclusion, having listened to the excellent and outstanding speech of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury —in which he demonstrated how the Bill will strengthen further the management of the Civil Service—that the Bill would lead to the break-up of the Civil Service and was about cost cutting. I inferred from his remarks that the hon. Gentleman feels that the Bill will prove disastrous for the Civil Service, but the very opposite will happen.
I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman takes the line that he does, particularly as the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, of which the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is a member, while perhaps being critical of the Government for being too slow in implementing the Next Steps policies, was generally strongly in support of the Government's broad policy of reforms within the Civil Service. Therefore, I am all the more surprised by the speech of the hon. Member for Wrexham.
Many detailed points have been made, and I trust that hon. Members will bear with me if I do not answer every one of them. Where I fail to do so, I shall make a point of writing to the hon. Member concerned with a clear response to his question.

Mr. Don Dixon: Why cannot the Minister answer every point now?

Mr. Luce: I shall be saying quite a lot in replying to the debate, so I trust that the hon. Gentleman will bear with me.
I want to view the Bill in the broader context of the Next Steps policy and to examine more sharply the issue of accountability, which hon. Members in all parts of the House have raised. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke in her new year message of the tasks that lie ahead for Britain in the 1990s. One of the "six great tasks" that she identified was to
improve our public services such as health and education, and make them more responsive to people's needs.
That is very much at the heart of the proposals before the House. I have told the House on many occasions that it is my view that the Next Steps initiative—

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister allow me to intervene?

Mr. Luce: Certainly I shall.

Mr. Dalyell: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of the Prime Minister, does he—or the Prime Minister—have any comment on the protest by the Civil Service First Division Association? One of the Government's tasks surely is to satisfy the Civil Service, but in relation to the guidelines, judging by the association's protest, the Government have failed to do so.

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman, with whom I have frequently jousted in this House, which I have enjoyed very much, goes wide of the Bill. However, no doubt he will seek other opportunities to probe that matter. I hope

that the hon. Gentleman will welcome my right hon. Friend's new year message and her emphasis on seeking to improve further the quality of Government services.
The purpose of the Next Steps initiative is to play a key role in improving the way in which we deliver Government services. I am glad that objective is widely shared both within this House and beyond. Both the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee and the Public Accounts Committee have shown a keen interest in our progress, and I am grateful for the support that both Committees have given and for their constructive criticism.
As we stated in the White Paper "The Financing and Management of Next Steps Agencies" which was published with the Bill:
The main aim of the Next Steps initiative is to deliver services more efficiently and effectively, within available resources, for the benefit of taxpayers, customers and staff. Agencies thus represent a new and distinctive development in the Governent's policies for improving all aspects of Civil Service management.
The Next Steps initiative, as its name suggests, builds on previous measures that have brought about significant benefits for management in Government. However, it is much more than a consolidation exercise. The Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee's first report on Next Steps in July 1988 noted that
this change could he the most far-reaching since the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms in the nineteenth century.
I am convinced that we are putting into effect a gradual revolution in the way that the Government go about their business.
It is nearly two years since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister launched the initiative, and progress since then has been good. I have tried in the various parliamentary replies that I have given to keep the House informed. So far, 10 agencies have been established and we expect 20 agencies to be up and running by the summer. In addition to the 10 already established, a further 40 activities in the home Civil Service and three in the Northern Ireland Civil Service have been announced as candidates for agency status. Together, they account for nearly 200,000 staff or about one third of the Civil Service.
Next Steps is not just about numbers, although the involvement, even at this early stage, of one civil servant in three is a pretty good indicator that we mean business. Our goal is to enable civil servants to use available resources in the most effective way to provide a high-quality service to the public.
The Bill will help the Civil Service to become more responsive to the needs of customers. The 10 agencies that have been launched so far have demanding performance indicators to do with quality of service, both for the public and for internal customers, and these targets are being achieved. For example—and this may go some way towards answering the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—the customers of Companies House will say that turn-round time for document searches has improved considerably, as has the lead time for orders placed with Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
The service has not just improved in terms of performance indicators. Next Steps has ensured that agency chief executives are keen to consult customers about what they want, and to meet those needs as far as possible. Agencies have been able to offer extended opening hours, premium services, and to provide offices in new locations.
The Bill will allow revenue-generating agencies in particular even more scope to respond to customer demand. It is worth stressing that point, because many right hon. and hon. Members were concerned about the quality of service to the public, and that is a major priority for the Government.
Next Steps agencies are also ensuring that they keep their customers in touch with what they are doing. They are training their staff better to meet customer needs. I attach much importance to that.
There has been a lot of stress on the issue of accountability, in my view quite rightly. My hon. Friends the Members for Cambridgeshire, South-East and for Gainsborough and Horncastle and the hon. Members for Wrexham, for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), among others, focused on accountability. It is of such importance that I hope the House will allow me to spend a moment or two to reiterate some of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
I stress the importance of the greater openness that will come from the Bill and the procedures that we are adopting under the Next Steps policy. There will be much more scope for Parliament to scrutinise the activities of the agencies than there has been hitherto, and that has been recognised by some of my hon. Friends if not by Opposition Members. Agencies' objectives and performance will be more open to scrutiny than ever before, by Parliament and by others with an interest, including their customers.
Parliament will know what the Minister has asked the agency to achieve, the resources the Minister has allocated, through Parliament, for the tasks, and the targets by which performance is measured, and through the agencies' annual report, the way in which the chief executive goes about the task and the extent to which the agency has been successful. That will be expanded on in the Bill, and I have no doubt that it will be debated in more detail in Committee.
A central feature of Next Steps arrangements is the position of agency chief executives. Each has managerial authority delegated to him or her by the responsible Minister.
The Minister is and remains accountable to Parliament as a whole and its Select Committees. When a Committee's interest is focused on the day-to-day operations of the agency, the Minister will normally regard the chief executive as being the person best placed to answer the Committee—on his or her behalf—on the performance of the agency. Ministers remain fully accountable for Government policies.
Alongside these more formal arrangements, right hon. and hon. Members need to know that the day-to-day operations of agencies are still open to their scrutiny on a day-to-day basis. There will always be queries and matters to be raised on behalf of individual constituents, besides the more general need of Members to inform themselves about the way in which Government policies are being executed in practice.
We believe that it will make sense to right hon. and hon. Members to deal in the first instance directly with the chief executive of an agency or his or her staff on matters for which he or she has delegated authority. Because Next

Steps agencies are by their nature particularly likely to be delivering services to the public, I would expect that a good proportion of matters raised by right hon. and hon. Members on behalf of their constituents or in connection with an inquiry made of them, are likely to be such operational matters. They will get a quicker response and be likely to resolve any follow-up points more quickly and to their satisfaction by going direct to the agency, rather than routing their inquiry through the Minister—who would almost certainly want to seek advice from the chief executive. That is, therefore, the course I encourage hon. Members to take, bearing in mind that it is the Minister who sets the policy, the resources and the targets for the agency and the chief executive who is responsible to him or her for the way in which the agency uses those resources and sets about achieving its targets.
Many right hon. and hon. Members will recognise this as confirming existing practice, since we already have good contacts with the appropriate Civil Service managers in our constituencies. Certainly, the experience of the existing agency chief executives is that hon. Members find it helpful to contact the agency direct and I know that many Civil Service managers welcome the additional feedback about what their customers really think and the opportunity to rectify errors and omissions when something goes wrong, which a businesslike relationship with local parliamentary representatives can bring.

Mr. Hind: My right hon. Friend has told the House that there will be strong accountability. Will he confirm that every Next Steps agency will have to come to the House and be considered for the inclusion of a trading fund within its operations by positive resolution of the House, and therefore that that additional safety net will be built into the system that he is putting forward?

Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said, and what is clearly established in the White Paper. Any organisation that is considered as a candidate for trading fund status under the Bill will be subject to the affirmative resolution of the House before it is established.

Mr. Cryer: Before the Minister leaves the general point, will he say whether the chief executives will have powers to send a minute to the Comptroller and Auditor General if they disagree with any policy laid down by the Government regarding the agency under the relevant audit and exchange control Act, for example, as a permanent secretary has the right to do as auditing and accounting officer in a Government Department?

Mr. Luce: Of course, in most cases the chief executive is established as the accounting officer for his operation. The same relationship would exist as with a permanent secretary, who is the accounting officer for overall policy. I confirm that that would be the general position.
To complete my remarks on accountability, I emphasise that it will be an addition to the existing practice by which hon. Members can raise any matter that falls directly within a Minister's responsibility with him in the House.
In short, as we said in Command Paper 524:
Establishing Executive Agencies within departments will involve some developments in the way in which external accountability is discharged. These include the publication of framework documents and the expectation that Members of


Parliament may often wish in the first instance to deal directly with Chief Executives on operational matters for which they have delegated authority. Ministers will continue to deal directly with inquiries about matters of policy or levels of resources, and with any cases where a Member of Parliament specifically seeks a reply from a Minister.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, Next Steps involves no diminution in ministerial accountability to Parliament. On the contrary, agencies and their workings will be more open to inspection and more responsive, both to their customers and to examination by right hon. and hon. Members. The establishment of Next Steps agencies offers the potential for significant enhancement of the openness and quality of public services and of direct access to the people who manage them. Next Steps will in this way nourish and sustain the already firmly rooted concept of ministerial accountability.
I think that it is right to set out the position on accountability as clearly as I can, in view of the importance that the House attaches to it.
I shall briefly mention one or two other matters raised by right hon. and hon. Members. I reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said about privatisation, as that subject featured considerably in the debate. The hon. Member for Wrexham, my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough and Horncastle, for Cambridgeshire, South-East and for Lancashire, West all mentioned privatisation. Before an agency is established, alternative options, including contracting out and privatisation, are examined. Next Steps is primarily for those operations that are to remain in the Government. However, after some years it may not be ruled out that agencies, like other Government activities, may be suitable for privatisation. When an agency is being set up and there is a firm intention of privatising it, that should be made clear. Our policy on the establishment of agencies, and on privatisation in general, remains the same.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle asked whether there were any candidates for either trading fund or straightforward agency status for which the Ministry of Defence was responsible. No fewer than seven, including those concerned with defence support, are included in the list. I hope that that will encourage my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), who raised the same point.
Although he demanded answers to a number of questions in his long speech, I think that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) would almost fall out of his seat if I responded to all of them. Although most were not related to the Bill, I think it only right to deal with a point on which he challenged my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, and which he raised again in his speech—the position of the Property Service Agency in the context of agency status.
My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary rightly made it plain that it is planned to privatise the vast bulk of the PSA—some 20,000 staff—and measures to do so are before the House. I should add, however, that a small part of the agency will remain in Government service and could therefore be a candidate for agency status, although whether it could be a candidate for trading fund status is a matter for further consideration.

Mr. Dalyell: May I make the reasonable request that some of my other questions be answered in writing,

preferably before the Bill has made much progress in Committee? I believe that they are relevant to the Civil Service and other Departments. I was hoping particularly —because they were rather ad hominem—that the Minister would comment on my questions about the position of Mr. Patrick Brown and Mr. Bob Etherington. I think that they raise important questions of principle, to which some Minister may have an answer.

Mr. Luce: Such is the compelling interest aroused whenever the hon. Gentleman speaks that—as he will have noticed—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment came into the Chamber this evening and heard much of his speech. I am sure that my right hon. Friend noted what he said, and I shall ensure that he is shown the full text of the hon. Gentleman's remarks about matters that are principally his responsibility.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) asked about the provision of social security benefits. As he said, the White Paper makes a clear reference to the matter in paragraph 4.14—which makes it plain that the delivery of such benefits would not satisfy the criteria for trading fund status—and I confirm that the service could not possibly become a trading fund agency.
My hon. Friends the Members for Gedling and for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) asked about the relocation of agencies. That is principally the responsibility of my right hon. and noble Friend the Paymaster General, but it would be the duty of any agency to consider whether relocation might bring about more efficiency and a better use of its resources. If it were already located in the south-east, for example, it might wish to move elsewhere. It will be the task of the Civil Service as a whole to look sharply at the benefits of relocation, and I have no doubt that every agency will undertake that task as well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle also asked about experience in the Civil Service —in business, for example. I attach considerable importance to that, which is why the Government have increased the number of secondments and exchanges between the private sector and the home Civil Service; indeed, I should like to see a further increase. The Next Steps team is ably managed by Mr. Kemp, who gained accountancy experience before entering the Civil Service, and a member of Price Waterhouse is on loan to the team. I value such experience.
It is important that the right people, with the right experience, are appointed as chief executives. The Government are also anxious that the general principle of open competition should be maintained as far as possible, and that is increasingly happening. We must ensure that we obtain the best people for the job, and that as much authority as possible is delegated to them: I agree with my hon. Friend about that. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) about the importance of delegating responsibility and accountability, and that is at the heart of the Bill and of the Next Steps policy. My hon. Friend also asked about training. Let me say again how important we consider that, and remind my hon. Friend that my office has introduced challenge funding for other Departments so that the level of Civil Service training is raised to an even higher standard.
I shall try to reply by letter to any questions that I have not answered specifically. Let me end, however, with a general issue raised by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr.


Marek), who asked about the number of candidates for trading fund status. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary made clear in his speech, among the existing agencies potentially suitable for trading fund status are the vehicle inspectorate, Companies house, the Historic Royal Palaces Agency and Warren Springs laboratory. There is, however, a long list of candidates—about 43—of which about 30 are possibilities. They represent about 50,000 of the 200,000 staff covered by the list. Although they may not all be given trading fund status, they can be taken as a guideline. The Bill will go a long way to strengthen the accountability of the agencies, particularly those suited for trading fund status.
As a result of the procedures introduced by the Bill, suitable Civil Service functions will be put on a more commercial and businesslike footing. The measures for holding agency chief executives fully accountable form a durable basis for giving agency management the tools to do the job and to provide the more efficient and effective and better-quality services which Next Steps is about. A trading fund represents a financing framework offering both independence of detailed control and clear accountability for results and value for money. That seems to me to be a most appropriate basis on which to move into the next decade.
Our Civil Service aims to achieve the highest standards of excellence. It has a high sense of duty. We have one of the finest Civil Services in the world. I believe that it will fulfil its tasks with great competence. The Bill will add to the range of tools that is available for the further improvement of Civil Service management and enhance the Government's drive towards improved financial management throughout the public services. I warmly commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for raising this matter on a point of order, but the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) to whom I wanted to put this question earlier on a point of order had left the Chamber and has only recently returned. The hon. Gentleman referred in his speech to the Government's trading fund agencies and to the services that the Civil Service college provides in terms of management skills and techniques. He spoke at great length about the need to privatise these services.
I notice that in the Register of Members' Interests the hon. Gentleman is a director of Framlingham Management and Training Services Ltd. Would it be in order at this stage for the hon. Gentleman to declare that interest, given that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and others have made it clear that it is vital that direct or indirect pecuniary interests should be made known to the House? It is interesting that the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East made such a vehement speech in support of the privatisation of trading fund agencies when the Register of Members' Interests shows that he is the director of a company that is directly involved in providing training services.

Mr. Paice: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The information to which the hon. Gentleman refers is out of date. I ceased to be a director of that company in May 1989.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) has put his point of order on record. All that I need say from the Chair is that, as the House well knows, there is a Register of Members' Interests and that it is customary for any hon. Member who has an interest to declare it during a debate.

Government Trading Bill [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Government Trading Bill, it is expedient to authorize—

(a) the payment out of the National Loans Fund or money provided by Parliament of sums required for the purpose of issues by way of loan to trading funds, subject to a limit of £2,000 million or such greater sum not exceeding £4,000 million as the Treasury may specify by order, and
(b) payments into the National Loans Fund or Consolidated Fund—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Mr. Bob Cryer: The Minister was unable in the time allocated to him to cover a point that I raised in my speech. Therefore, I have decided to use the opportunity provided by the money resolution to give him another opportunity to reply to it.
The money will be subject to a limit of £2 billion, or such greater sum not exceeding £4 billion, which is certainly a lot of money swilling around. The explanatory and financial memorandum states:
The Bill provides that the aggregate of all such limits must not exceed £2,000 minion, which may be increased to £4,000 million by affirmative resolution order.
I should be grateful if the Minister could say what the effect of the amendments contained in the Bill will be on section 6 of the Goverment Trading Funds Act 1973. Subsection (3) would be amended to read:
A statutory instrument containing an order under section 1 of this Act if made without a draft having been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of that House.
The affirmative procedure is thereby removed. The negative procedure takes its place.
The Government Trading Funds Act 1973 refers in section 6(3) to an order made under section 2(4). The passage that I read out is the amended version of section 6(3). The Minister will no doubt be acutely aware that section 2(4) is removed. Its substitute is a clause of the Bill with which we are now dealing. New section 2B(7) says:
The sum of the maxima in force in respect of all trading funds at any time shall not exceed £2,000 million.
Subsection (8) of new section 2B states:
The Treasury may by order made by statutory instrument increase or further increase the limit in subsection (7) above by any amount, not exceeding £1,000 million, specified in the order but not so as to make the limit exceed £4,000 million.
That lines up more or less with the money resolution that we are happily discussing.
Do the amendments to section 6, and of new section 2B, mean that the Minister can use a negative procedure instrument to raise the maximum of the trading funds, or is it just confused wording which provides the Minister with a residual power so that he does not have to use the affirmative resolution procedure? Is the Minister being given the power to decide whether he should use the affirmative or negative resolution procedure? On most occasions, Ministers, by some happy chance, seem to prefer the negative resolution procedure. I would be assured if the Minister would say that, in Committee—just so that it can be clear to the ordinary citizen—we can insert an amendment to new section 2B(8), which states:
The Treasury may by order made by affirmative statutory instrument".
The provision would then line up with what appears to be one interpretation of the present legislation. I know that

the Minister likes to be positive and constructive whenever the opportunity presents itself, and I would be happy if he could give such an assurance.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): rose—

Mr. Cryer: I have another question. I know that the Minister is keen to give me an assurance. Perhaps I should not stretch his patience, but I shall give it a try.
A lot of money—up to £4 billion—is floating around, and I am a little worried about what the Minister said about there being a lot of interchange between the private sector and the Civil Service. The trading funds are based on the idea of some form of competition developing. Perhaps the Government had something like Barlow Clowes in mind when they drew up this method of trading. The Minister said that there is a lot of interchange between the Government and the private sector through civil servants. It occurs to me that the Government must maintain a system in which civil servants are kept at arm's length from the private sector and in which there are clear rules. I am not making any accusations, but the public must be satisfied that, when civil servants advise on setting up trading funds, which the Minister argues will offer a better and more efficient service—I do not agree—they will not get so close to the private sector that they become involved and finish up as directors on boards.
The Minister knows that this issue has been raised before in various contexts. I shall give an example of what I have in mind. I remember the General Electric Company getting hot under the collar with the then Department of Industry and making representations about its desire to take over Northern Engineering Industries. Inquiries about whether GEC was influencing civil servants to make such a decision were made. It was discovered that a civil servant became a non-executive director of GEC. I asked in the House whether the civil servant, who had been in the Department of Industry, had been involved in discussions with GEC. The answer was no, but it subsequently appeared that there had been a series of secret meetings between several civil servants, including the permanent secretary at the Department of Industry, and GEC. There was contact. We asked whether secret meetings were held to be good and whether the civil servant established contacts which enabled him to assume an important position in GEC.
I recognise that I am not posing an easy question, but the Minister will have to be satisfied, and it must be clear, that civil servants will remain completely aloof from any inducements or lures to move to the private sector for their own benefit. I am quite sure that that principle guides the Civil Service, Ministers and the House. Under the money resolution which allows increases up to £2 billion and £4 billion and in which a great deal of money is involved, I should like to know how that principle will be maintained.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Under the money resolution I wish to return to the issue of valuation in relation to the Property Services Agency which, as the Minister said in a previous speech, might be very small but nonetheless would remain.
I asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when a proper valuation of the Property Services Agency


would be carried out and at what cost. The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope), replied:
It is too early to say.
It seems pretty extraordinary that we are making great changes in the Property Services Agency, which according to the National Audit Office report was valued at £3 billion in 1982 and is now valued at £10 billion—the Minister may challenge those figures if he disagrees with them—yet apparently no proper valuation has been undertaken.
Secondly, it is within the terms of the money resolution to ask the Minister to explain what physical assets in the Property Services Agency will be assigned to a privatised body and on what basis. Will such property and equipment remain in public ownership? Will it be leased to a privatised body or will it be given to such a body as a sweetener? In other words, is flotation envisaged?
It is rather unsatisfactory when a Member of Parliament raises a bit ad hominem the position of two key individuals—in this case Mr. Bob Etherington and Mr. Patrick Brown—and the Minister replies, "If you want answers to those questions perhaps you will get them from the Secretary of State for the Environment." He was courteous enough to say that the Secretary of State for the Environment had come in to hear my speech. I thank him for his courtesy, but the purpose of the House of Commons is not to be courteous but to give answers. Precisely because Ministers have had time—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is right that the purpose of the House is to give answers, provided that it is to the right motion. I am having some difficulty in understanding what relevance this has to the Bill.

Mr. Dalyell: You are at some disadvantage, Mr. Speaker, because when you were out of the Chamber, the occupant of the Chair listened rather carefully to what I was saying and made no attempt to rule me out of order although I spoke at some length. I believe that I am in order under the terms of paragraph 8 of the National Audit Office report and under the terms of the Bill.
If particular cases are raised, they should, not least for the sake of the individuals concerned, be answered in the reply to the debate. Therefore, I was disappointed simply to hear that the Secretary of State for the Environment was courteous enough to come and hear me. Some answer should have been forthcoming on a rather major issue of principle.
In relation to property and equipment, will the Minister explain in terms of the money resolution how such valuable public resources are to be valued, who will be given the task and how soon such a portfolio would be completed? What assurance can the Minister give the House that such a valuation would be able to withstand public scrutiny so ensuring that the public was not ripped off in the privatisation of the PSA and Crown Suppliers?
I am entitled to ask the Chief Secretary again whether it is true that Miss Jeannie Turton chaired a committee on behalf of the Treasury that opposed privatisation. One of the central units in the Treasury made a similar report, and we know that Dewi Jones also did so. Was my description of the circumstances of the report by Coopers and

Lybrand correct? Was Mr. Etherington's organisation correct in its valuation? Was what I said about it factually true?
While the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill refers to the transfer of undertakings under Protection of Employment Regulations 1981, what undertakings is the Minister prepared to give in regard to any person or persons subsequently made redundant under the new private body—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, who rightly said that I was not present during his previous speech. However, it seems to me that these matters are concerned with the Second Reading debate rather than with the money resolution.

Mr. Dalyell: I think, with respect, Mr. Speaker, that we are in some difficulty. The Minister quite properly conceded that there was to be a fag end of the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill—honourably, he nods in assent—among the bodies that we are discussing. Surely, therefore, I am entitled to ask general questions—

Mr. Speaker: Order. No. The money resolution covers the payment of loans to Government trading funds under new section 1(5) and new section 2B(2), (7) and (8) of the Government Trading Funds Act 1973 relating to payments into the national loans fund or the consolidated fund; under new section 2A(5) relating to public dividend capital; new section 4A(6) relating to operations ceasing to be funded; and clause 2(1)(b) relating to increases of pensions.

Mr. Dalyell: Under new section 2A may I raise a question that has concerned the trade unions about protection from asset stripping? Given the nature of the construction industry, is it not necessary that bidders for the Property Services Agency and the Crown Suppliers do not seek to asset-strip those organisations? The trade unions do not want a repeat of the royal ordnance factory fiasco. They therefore ask that amendments to the Bill—

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): Which Bill?

Mr. Dalyell: —are supported to ensure that windfall profits from the sale do not accrue to the Treasury. I say to the Financial Secretary that of course I am referring to the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill. It is easy to assert that that Bill is not relevant to the money resolution of today's discussion. If that is so, why on earth mention the Crown Suppliers in the Bill that we are discussing? Ministers cannot have it both ways. I believe that these are legitimate questions and that they deserve some answer here and now.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): In a moment, I shall try to help the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr. Cryer), but first I should like to respond to the remarks of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I thought that I had made it plain in my reply to the Second Reading debate that many of the points that he raised about the Property Services Agency were related to the provisions that we are debating on the privatisation of the bulk of the PSA and that I would draw his worries to the attention of my right hon. Friend the


Secretary of State for the Environment, who will no doubt wish to comment on them. Of course I will do that, and I will do the same on the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised under the money resolution. I shall draw those matters to the attention of my right hon. Friend. I am concerned that the hon. Gentleman should get a proper answer. Most of those issues, including the references to Mr. Etherington and Mr. Brown, do not relate to the Government Trading Bill. It would not be right or proper for me to answer those points specifically.

Mr. Dalyell: This is my last intervention. Is the Minister sure that he is right? Was not the crucial decision to go to Coopers and Lybrand for the report that was wanted—not the "whether" but the "how" report—taken inside the Treasury and Civil Service Department and not in the Department of the Environment?

Mr. Luce: Much though I should like to think that Ministers of the Civil Service are infallible, I fear that they are not. If I am wrong in these matters, I shall put it right with the hon. Gentleman by means of a letter or other contact.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South referred to the ethical standards of civil servants and the possibility of agencies being privatised. As a Minister with day-to-day responsibilities for the Civil Service, I attach great importance to the maintenance of the high ethical standards that the Civil Service already has. Certain rules, codes and guidelines on these matters can and must be followed. There are already rules and guidelines covering civil servants who wish to obtain a job outside the Civil Service. The rules involving the Diamond committee, of which the hon. Member for Bradford, South will be aware, are clear. Very high standards are maintained. Clearly, we must always ensure that there are no conflicts of interest. That is my duty and the duty of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as Minister for the Civil Service. There is no evidence that civil servants as a whole have any wish to abuse those rules in any way.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South made another point which should be seriously considered. I apologise for not picking up the hon. Gentleman's point earlier in my wind-up speech on Second Reading. I could have reassured the hon. Gentleman then. The Government propose to introduce an amendment to make orders under new section 2B(8) subject to affirmative resolution. This was omitted in the drafting. I hope that this undertaking, which we can consider in Committee, will reassure the hon. Gentleman and answer his main point.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Government Trading Bill, it is expedient to authorize—

(a) the payment out of the National Loans Fund or money provided by Parliament of sums required for the purpose of issues by way of loan to trading funds, subject to a limit of £2,000 million or such greater sum not exceeding £4,000 million as the Treasury may specify by order, and
(b) payments into the National Loans Fund or Consolidated Fund.

CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY (BORROWING POWERS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90(6) (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

CENSUS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.),
That items 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13(a) (e) (f) (g)- (h) (i) (j) (k), 14(a)(vi), 14(b), 15, 17, 18 and 19 of Schedule 2 and items 2 and 3 of Schedule 3 to the Order in Council, entitled the Census Order 1989, a draft of which was laid before this House on 13th November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved—[Mr. Durrell.]

The House divided: Ayes 93, Noes 16.

Division No. 30]
[9.23 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Lawrence, Ivan


Amos, Alan
Lee, John (Pendle)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Lightbown, David


Atkins, Robert
Lilley, Peter


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Maclean, David


Brazier, Julian
McLoughlin, Patrick


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Mans, Keith


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Miller, Sir Hal


Buck, Sir Antony
Mills, Iain


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Chapman, Sydney
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Neubert, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Nicholls, Patrick


Dorrell, Stephen
Norris, Steve


Durant, Tony
Paice, James


Fallon, Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Fookes, Dame Janet
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Forth, Eric
Pawsey, James


Freeman, Roger
Porter, David (Waveney)


French, Douglas
Redwood, John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Riddick, Graham


Goodlad, Alastair
Rowe, Andrew


Gorst, John
Stern, Michael


Gregory, Conal
Stevens, Lewis


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Hague, William
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Summerson, Hugo


Hanley, Jeremy
Thurnham, Peter


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Trippier, David


Hind, Kenneth
Waller, Gary


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Wells, Bowen


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Wheeler, Sir John


Irvine, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Jack, Michael
Wilshire, David


Janman, Tim
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Winterton, Nicholas


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Wolfson, Mark


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)



Knapman, Roger
Tellers for the Ayes:


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Mr. Tom Sackville and


Knox, David
Mr. John M. Taylor.


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman







NOES


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Nellist, Dave


Beith, A. J.
Pike, Peter L.


Bermingham, Gerald
Primarolo, Dawn


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Skinner, Dennis


Cousins, Jim
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)



Kirkwood, Archy
Tellers for the Noes:


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Meale, Alan
Mr. Jimmy Hood.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Smoking

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Mr. Alan Amos: I am delighted to be offering the first Adjournment debate of the 1990s. I hope and believe that the 1990s increasingly will become a smoke-free decade. It has started unfortunately with the minority of smokers dictating a dangerous and anti-social environment for the majority. However, I am optimistic that by the end of the decade most public places will be free of that health and environmental hazard.
Smoking is a dangerous, dirty and anti-social habit. It is now practised by only one third of the adult population, but it directly affects the other two thirds. I firmly believe in the principle that people should be free to do what they want subject only to the proviso that they do not harm or injure anyone else. If people want the right to indulge in a habit which they know may damage their health and eventually kill them, that is their right in a free and democratic society. However, when their drug has the same effect on the majority of people who do not smoke, that is not acceptable and is a gross violation of human and civil rights.
This debate is not anti-smoker; it is pro the legitimate and abused rights of the non-smoking majority. The tobacco lobby may say, "What about the loss of Government revenue from tobacco taxation?" Well, what about it? Nothing that I will suggest this evening will affect that in any way. I do not see how the establishment of non-smoking areas will reduce the consumption of tobacco products when all smokers will continue to be allowed to smoke the same amount as before. They will simply have to do it in certain areas so that they do not pose a danger to the majority who do not smoke.
If smoking is reduced as a result of the measures that I will suggest, so much the better for everyone—and for smokers in particular. Tobacco tax could and should be increased to maintain the level of revenue. As we get down to the hardened core of committed smokers, so the demand for tobacco products becomes inelastic at which point the tax can be raised as much as we like —within reason—and that will eventually increase revenue. In any case, I doubt whether the tobacco lobby is in the slightest bit concerned about the level of Government revenue. It merely uses that as a superficial and dishonest debating point.
My debate covers two essential political issues. The first relates to extending and enhancing the rights and freedom of the individual. The second involves the protection of the environment—the green issue.
The majority of people should not have to be subjected to the health risks created by smokers. Mr. Speaker, you are a reasonable man. It is not right that you should have to watch someone else's pollution waft across you in a restaurant and land upon the food which you then must eat. Surely it is not right that you should come out of a pub or a cinema with your clothes and hair reeking of stale smoke. Surely it cannot be right that when you make a journey by train or bus you must sit in a smoke-filled cocoon which may cause eye and nose irritations. Surely it is not right that in one's place of work, where one spends most of one's waking life, one should be subjected to the selfishness of the minority. Surely it is not right that


schools, which must now have a health education programme, should allow pupils to see teachers create the impression that smoking is just a normal part of the adult lifestyle.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) called you, Mr. Speaker, a reasonable man. Of course all hon. Members agree with that, but what does my hon. Friend mean by a smoke-filled cocoon? When I go for my walk in the morning, everybody is hurtling around jogging and so on. They are in a smoke-filled world. My hon. Friend talks about smoking killing people. Biased medics will use anything to bolster their bias when they say that smoking kills. What about all the traffic? What about carbon monoxide? Is my hon. Friend so naive as to believe that all that kills is smoking and that carbon monoxide is almost good for us? Does he want to do away with cars, buses, trains and aircraft? Is his bias so built-in that he wants to do away with just us smokers who want to go about our harmless way?

Mr. Amos: If I had been allowed to develop my arguments, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) would have been relieved to hear that they are consistent and to the point. My hon. Friend says that his smoking pastime is harmless. Nothing could be further from the truth.
We are all concerned about the environment, but for many people that concern seems to stop short at the frontiers of the external environment and does not seem to extend to the domestic or enclosed environment. I am concerned with what happens to the ozone layer and also with what happens to individuals' lungs and hearts. It is inconsistent and rather pointless for people to worry about the effects of lead in petrol and then spend their working day in a smoke-infested atmosphere, to be followed by a couple of hours in a smoke-infested pub, and finish with an hour or two in a smoke-infested living room, regardless of the effects on their children.
Now is the time for the Government to act, and act positively. The Government are to be applauded for their initiatives to protect the external environment. They are to be encouraged in their involvement in warning the public about the scourge of AIDS and the dangers of drink driving. However, when it comes to smoking, there seems to be an extraordinary reluctance to take any effective action—everything must be voluntary. The tobacco industry's power does not frighten me, but its power to prevent the introduction of any effective measures to protect the majority of people is nothing short of scandalous.
It is entirely right that the tobacco industry's voluntary agreement to limit tobacco advertising and sponsorship should be shown for what it is. At a time when under-age smoking is a growing social menace, especially among girls aged 11 to 15, it is quite outrageous that the Committee for Monitoring Agreements on Tobacco Advertising and Sponsorship—COMATAS—should be allowed to keep many of its findings confidential. Clearly, tobacco companies have something to hide. Four major studies on how well voluntary agreements are being observed have been kept secret—one on poster advertising near schools, one on sports sponsorship, and two surveys on advertising at confectioners, tobacconists and newsagents. One can only be extremely suspicious of why they have been kept

secret. It was because tobacco companies kept breaking voluntary agreements that COMATAS was set up. Even so, tobacco companies still broke the agreements 41 times in 1987 alone. Clearly, as a matter of urgency, we must set up a new legally-binding agreement.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health has now agreed to renegotiate the voluntary agreement on advertising and that the role of COMATAS will also be reviewed. COMATAS has limited value in its present role, because tobacco companies can veto the truth if they do not like what it is. This voluntary approach is basically a cop-out and an abdication of responsibility.
The argument that statutory measures cannot work is clearly nonsense, because other countries such as the United States, Canada and Australia have already introduced measures to honour the rights of people in those countries. The argument that statutory measures should not be introduced is a dereliction of duty when one considers the effects of smoking on the culprits and the innocent victims—children, the elderly and the majority of people in general. Deaths from smoking-induced diseases in the United Kingdom, especially lung cancer and other cancers and coronary heart disease and arterial diseases, are 110,000 a year, which is equal to about 15 deaths per hour. It costs the National Health Service over £500 million a year to treat tobacco-related diseases, all of which are preventable, not to mention the time off work due to ill health.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: They are not all preventable.

Mr. Amos: They are preventable if people do not smoke. The central consideration must be the rights of the long-suffering majority who should not be expected to live and work in a smoke-infested environment.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: What about traffic?

Mr. Amos: The debate is about smoking. If my hon. Friend listens he will learn a lot and I am sure that his views will be changed by the sense and logic of the argument. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member For Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) would contain himself there might be time for him to speak in the debate and put his point of view.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I am encouraging my hon. Friend to say something sensible.

Mr. Speaker: Do not encourage him.

Mr. Amos: I need no encouragement to spread truth and light throughout the world.
In the case of passive smoking, the non-smoker breathes sidestream smoke from the burning tip of a cigarette and mainstream smoke from that which has been inhaled and then exhaled by the smoker. Most people in Britain spend most of their lives indoors and tobacco smoke makes a significant and measurable contribution to the level of indoor air pollution, which is what I am concerned about. We do not have the problem of lead pollution in the home, the workplace or in school.
Tobacco smoke is highly complex and contains thousands of chemicals which are released into the air as particles and gases. Many potentially toxic gases are present in high concentrations in sidestream smoke and


nearly 85 per cent. of the smoke in a room is sidestream. About 60 of these substances are known or suspected to be carcinogens. How does that affect passive smokers, the people who involuntarily breath in this pollution? As well as causing annoyance by making hair and clothes smell unpleasant, involuntary smoke exposure can cause symptoms such as eye irritation, headache, coughing, sore throat, dizziness and nausea and it produces many small but measurable changes in the air passages of lungs of otherwise healthy adults. Adults with experience of asthma undergo a significant and substantial decline in lung function when exposed to sidestream smoke for one hour. People with allergies and respiratory and heart ailments will be more seriously affected.
The effects of long-term exposure are very serious. In March 1988 the Government's independent scientific committee on smoking and health published its fourth report dealing in particular with the issue of passive smoking. The committee scrutinised studies on the effects of passive smoking and found that the overall findings were consistent with an increased risk of lung cancer in non-smokers of up to 30 per cent. That was independent, scientific medical evidence. When that risk is compared with other cancer risks, it is found that the life-long risk from passive smoking is more than 100 times higher than the estimated effect of 20 years exposure to asbestos that is normally found in buildings.
Many people are involved and some of them are at a greater risk than the general population due to pre-existing cardiac or respiratory conditions and/or prolonged exposure in the home or workplace. There is no safe level of exposure to carcinogens. Recent studies have also found an increased risk of disease other than lung cancer in passive smokers. In addition, young children are at risk. Infants of parents who smoke are more likely to be admitted to hospital for bronchitis and pneumonia in the first year of life. Chronic coughs and phlegm are more frequent among the children of parents who smoke. The Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health said:
By enhancing the frequency or severity of childhood respiratory illnesses, [passive smoking] could contribute to the development of respiratory disease in adult life among nonsmokers.
The committee also found evidence of an association between exposure to passive smoking and low birth weight and said that, since active smoking confers a hazard on the health of the unborn baby, passive smoking might be expected to confer one also, albeit a smaller one.
On the basis of the independent scientific and medical evidence, the non-smoker should be protected. Experts have concluded that given the public health initiatives to minimise or eliminate involuntary public exposure to other environmental pollutants with less carcinogenic potency than several of the substances in tobacco smoke, similar efforts to prevent involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke are necessary. In the United States of America some 80 per cent. of states restrict smoking in public places and workplace smoking policies have increased dramatically in the 1980s.
Public opinion now demands the provision of a smoke-free environment in five main areas: public transport, public eating places, places of public entertainment, the workplace and schools.
As you are a learned man, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you will be aware that 80 per cent. of the public agree that there should be no smoking on public transport. That includes 67 per cent. of smokers. There have been recent encouraging developments. For example, there is now a total ban on smoking on London Underground. British Airways has introduced a ban on smoking on all its domestic flights by public demand, including that of many smokers. I congratulate British Airways on that move and on putting up with the abuse of the well-heeled Tobacco Advisory Council. The council's only advice seems to be that people should smoke as much as they want because the medical evidence is not conclusive about the health dangers. They say, "Go ahead and smoke because it does not do you any harm." [Interruption]—a view shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak. There is independent medical evidence which some people, to their lasting regret, choose to ignore. That is their choice.
The smoking ban on British Airways was introduced despite dire warnings about what would happen to customer demand. The opposite of what was predicted has happened. I, for one, would choose British Airways in preference to other airlines such as Dan Air, all things being equal, because I know that I will not have to take the risk of sitting in a smoke-infested atmosphere.
The challenge to British Airways is to extend the ban to its European and transatlantic flights. In the United States all domestic flights are now smoke-free. Some journeys last up to five hours. The Canadian Government has just announced a smoking ban on all domestic and international flights on all Canadian airlines. So much for the argument that it cannot be done.
Progress is also being made on British Rail. It is time for them to get rid of mixed smoking and non-smoking carriages and compartments. In open coaches the existence of a non-smoking section adjacent to a smoking section is useless. British Rail must reintroduce the concept of smoking carriages which would be easily identified by the fog inside and the empty seats.
Similarly, upper decks of buses divided between smoking and non-smoking sections do not provide a smoke-free environment for the non-smoker. The onus must shift from the privilege of the minority to damage the health and environment of the majority to special provision for the minority in secluded areas so that the rights of the majority can and will be respected.
Some eating places and pubs now give customers a choice. Where areas cannot clearly be demarcated, the onus must shift to the rights of the majority. Eating places should be clean and hygienic in the dining areas as well as in the kitchens. Fast food places are popular, especially with children and young people. It appears that 91 per cent. of the public generally and 89 per cent. of smokers agree that all restaurants should provide no-smoking areas.
Another consideration is entertainment areas. Increasingly, cinemas are making provision for the majority of their customers. The futility of dividing an auditorium into smoking and non-smoking sections has been highlighted. Entire areas should be completely free of smoke infestation.
In the workplace, we are talking again about the rights of the individual—indeed, the rights of the majority—and concern for the environment. Even 81 per cent. of smokers agree that non-smokers should have the right to work in


non-polluted areas. The demand is that all United Kingdom workplaces must have an effective smoking policy.
In education, the adult community has an especial responsibility to protect our children from the dangers of passive smoking and the appalling examples which smokers provide. It is about time that we had the guts to end the outrage of continuing tobacco advertising and sponsorship, both of which are designed to encourage people to smoke more. That applies especially to youngsters, who are needed to take up smoking in ever greater numbers as adults continue increasingly to kick the habit. There has been an alarming growth in smoking among young people—I am talking about 15-year-olds —particularly among girls. I have no doubt that that has been caused by the heavy advertising of the tobacco industry in women's and girls' magazines.
The Tobacco Advisory Council has limitless money to take full-page advertisements in the national daily press and evening newspapers—I have some examples with me —which seek to abuse the right of the majority to have clean air and any organisation such as British Airways, which dares to respond to its customers and brave the wrath of the advisory council in order to introduce a clean air policy.
The tobacco industry spends about £120 million a year of its obscene profits on advertising plus countless extra millions on sponsorship. Of course, sponsorship is the obvious and easy way to circumvent restrictions on advertising. It is an outrageous abuse when there is tobacco sponsorship of sporting events which are especially impressionable on young people. The aim must be to stop people smoking and to protect people from the influences of the Tobacco Advisory Council in encouraging people to start smoking, especially when set against the massive sums spent by the tobacco industry is the derisory £3 million that is spent on smoking prevention by the Government, together with the welcome extra £10 million that is to be spent over the next five years by the Government on their new teenage anti-smoking campaign.
In December, Mr. Donald Reid, the director of the Health Education Authority, said:
One million children and teenagers alive today in Britain will eventually die from smoking if the present trend continues.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: That is rubbish.

Mr. Amos: That was said at the launch of the new campaign to try to reduce teenage smoking over the next five years.
At the launch Mr. Reid accused the tobacco industry of refusing to co-operate in moves to cut illegal tobacco sales among the under-16s. The authority had asked companies to cut off supplies of cigarettes to retailers caught selling cigarettes illegally but the tobacco industry had refused.
Mr. Reid added:
This is not surprising since the industry must recruit 270 children to smoking today—merely to replace the 270 adults who will die from smoking.
The industry knew that if they attracted youngsters aged 11–15 they would keep them for life.
The article continues:
The HEA's programme will also be targeted at schools with the goal of making all schools non-smoking by 1995.
An HEA booklet which is being distributed to schools claims that children are attracted to smoking through cigarette advertising, tobacco-sponsored sports events and the sophisticated image associated by smoking.

This is not the time for timidity. As the Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health said in March 1988:
Passive smoking is a major public health hazard in all public places. Several hundred thousand people will die in the UK as a result of being forced to breathe in other people's tobacco smoke.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: More rubbish.

Mr. Amos: My hon. Friend shouts "More rubbish", but my remarks happen to be true. We are dealing with a serious matter which puts lives at risk and which concerns an anti-social habit. The public have a right to hear my remarks, rather than for me to be shouted down or abused by the power of the tobacco industry—though it scares me not one jot. I quoted independent scientific and medical advice.
Several hundred thousand people in the United Kingdom will die as the result of being forced to breathe other people's tobacco smoke. Those suffering from asthma and bronchitis are severely affected, as smoke irritates the eyes, nose and throat. It also makes clothes, hair, furniture and other objects reek of stale smoke. There is overwhelming public demand for a cleaner environment in buildings as well as outside, not only among non-smokers but among many smokers themselves, who recognise the problem—

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Mr. Tom Sackville: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker: The Question is, That this House do now adjourn.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Will you not, Mr. Speaker, allow my hon. Friend the Minister to reply?

Mr. Speaker: I ask the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) please to remain silent. I call Mr. Amos.

Mr. Amos: Many smokers themselves recognise the problems associated with smoking and may welcome the opportunity that a ban would provide to help them give up their habit. Such a ban could serve as an inducement. The Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health remarked in 1988:
Non-smoking should be regarded as the norm in enclosed areas frequented by the public or employees, special provision being made for smokers rather than vice-versa.
In 1986 the World Health Organisation commented:
Passive smoking violates the right to health of non-smokers, who must be protected against this noxious form of environmental pollution.
None of that can happen unless the Government accept their responsibility to introduce legislation and stop relying on so-called voluntary measures, which in many cases do not work and never can work properly. We know that passive smoking is 100 times more dangerous than breathing in asbestos dust. We should remember the outcry when asbestos is discovered in a building. It is immediately closed to the public and suitably protected workmen are called in to remove the asbestos.
There will always be a significant number of people who will not respond to voluntary measures—as one finds in restaurants when a selfish smoker is clearly causing distress to non-smokers at an adjacent table—and legislation has been tried, and works, in countries and cities throughout


the world, including the United States of America, Canada, Australia, Belgium, Norway and Spain. Those countries have laws guaranteeing some form of protection for non-smokers that have overwhelming public support and are effective.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health on his genuine and strong personal commitment to the cause that I support. I hope that the debate will strengthen his hand in bringing about new measures and in using whatever influence he can bring to bear in ensuring a clean and safe environment. The message is simple. Legislation can be used, is being used and should continue to be used. Smoking is no longer socially acceptable and we should all act on public opinion, take the lead, and provide a clean, safe and healthy environment.

Mr. Frank Haynes: The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) stated that we should heed the majority, but there is of course also a minority—and they too hold an opinion. I do not approve of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) catcalling the hon. Member for Hexham when he was putting his case. However, I must admit that when I am seated behind the hon. Member for Selly Oak when he is smoking his pipe, more often than not I really enjoy the aroma and sense of flavour that reaches me. Other right hon. and hon. Members also smoke pipes, and I enjoy the sensation as much as they do.
The hon. Member for Hexham is being a little dictatorial. We have just got rid of a dictator in Romania, but here we go again. I believe that we are seeing the thin end of a very thick wedge. That is what is happening. If the hon. Member for Hexham persuades the Government to do what he has suggested, he, or some of his colleagues, will move on. They will have a total ban on smoking. The hon. Gentleman is nodding his head and agreeing with me. If his constituency was in Bristol or Nottinghamshire he would not have made that speech, but would have kidded someone else into making it. Both those cities have massive tobacco factories.
I do not live in or represent a constituency in Nottingham; my constituency is outside the city. A number of my constituents work in the tobacco industry in Nottingham. I am surprised that I do not see one or two Conservative Members who represent constituencies in Nottinghamshire in their places, or standing up for the industry. I am here to defend the tobacco industry, but there are no Conservative Members representing Nottingham or Bristol here. The little fellow who sits up yonder is not here now, but he ought to have been here to defend his constituents and the jobs available to them in the tobacco industry.

Mr. Ian Bruce: rose—

Mr. Haynes: I shall not give way, because other hon. Members want to speak.
The hon. Member for Hexham did not write his speech. A voluntary organisation wrote it for him.

Mr. Amos: The hon. Member should withdraw that remark.

Mr. Haynes: I shall not withdraw it. I have heard that speech before. It came from an organisation that is against smoking; it is called Action on Smoking and Health. I am sure that the hon. Member for Selly Oak has also heard it before. The hon. Member for Hexham may wag his head. He was agreeing with me and now he is disagreeing, but I have heard that speech time and again.
I am defending the rights of the individual too. There is a minority in this land who wish to smoke. If the hon. Member for Hexham considers other countries he will find that they are in the same boat—they have minorities and some have majorities. The hon. Gentleman has not been here very long and he has a lot to learn. Hon. Members do not get away with the things that he has suggested tonight. I am not saying that he is not out of nappies yet, but he has a lot to learn.
I have listened to the Under-Secretary speak on many occasions in many debates, including those on smoking. I congratulate him on his work for health since he left the Ministry of Defence, although I am an Opposition Member. I praise the Under-Secretary, but I do not praise the hon. Member for Hexham, because if he lies in bed tonight and considers what he has said, he will probably have a different opinion in the morning. He should consider what I have said about jobs and the rights of the minority. He is favouring the majority.

Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) for allowing me to contribute to his Adjournment debate. I commend the sensible and balanced way that he spoke. Public opinion is shifting and my hon. Friend has captured the changing mood more accurately than did the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes).
I hope that every hon. Member hopes to reduce the 100,000 premature deaths caused by smoking every year. Progress has been made in the past few years, and the Government deserve some credit for their role in securing a reduction in the number of deaths. However, we must do more. We need a coherent strategy that embraces all Government Departments, including the Treasury, because excise duty has an influence on consumption, and there has been no increase in duty in the last two Budgets. I hope that that will be put right so that there is a firm fiscal boost for the preventive strategy that we all want.
The Department of Trade and Industry has a role to play: there is no point in the Government's providing grants for the building of factories to manufacture cigarettes if they adopt a posture in favour of a reduction in smoking. Sports Ministers have their role to play: there is also no point in the Department of Health putting across the message that smoking is unhealthy if the Department of the Environment allows sport—a healthy activity—to be associated, through sponsorship, with smoking.
My hon. Friend's Department has a key role in this regard. I remember that, when I was given the job that he now holds, I observed two things when I entered the building: a no-smoking sign and, behind it, a chain-smoking doorkeeper. It took me a long time to establish the correct priority, and to disengage the latter from the former. I hope that the Department is now doing what it can to discourage smoking in hospitals, and at


district health authority meetings, for instance, and that there are plenty of smoke-free zones at Richmond house, the Department's new headquarters.
What an individual does in his own home is of course a matter for him. My hon. Friend's point was this: why should we have to inhale polluted air in places that we have to visit, such as post offices and railway stations? Do we not have a right to breathe unpolluted air? What my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) does with his pipe in private affects no one; what he does with it in public affects many of us. The hon. Member for Ashfield may like the flavour that follows my hon. Friend, but I must say that, although I am happy to tolerate his company and conversation, I do not like the smoke, and my wife does not like the smell of my clothes when I go home after a discussion with my hon. Friend.
We can play a role by choosing to patronise institutions that have already made progress. We can stay at hotels with no-smoking bedrooms; we can visit pubs and no-smoking bars and restaurants with no-smoking zones; and—as my hon. Friend pointed out—we can support airlines that have banned smoking. We can get the message across to producers and suppliers that public opinion is shifting, and that they can attract more customers by reponding to the changing mood than by listening to the rather reactionary voices that we have just heard.
My hon. Friend spoke of the "nanny state", but so far the no-smoking rule has been self-policing. There is little smoking on the Underground now, not because we have a nanny state but because people accept the rule. As far as I know, no one has been prosecuted for smoking on the Underground, although there may have been one or two prosecutions. Exactly the same would happen if the policy was extended to discouraging smoking in public places: the prohibition would become self-enforcing. We are asking the Government to nudge the shift in public opinion even further by giving a lead along the imaginative lines suggested by my hon. Friend.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) on introducing such an important debate. I shall keep my remarks brief, as I know that other hon. Members may wish to contribute if there is time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Sir G. Young) is entirely right: a reduction in cigarette smoking will unquestionably save lives. Of 1.000 young adults who are regular smokers, 250 will die before their time from smoking cigarettes; six will die in road accidents. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton that we ignore such statistics at our peril. Smoking cigarettes is dangerous, and, as a health Minister, I have a responsibility—as, indeed, we all have—to draw that fact to the attention of the public.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham that passive smoking is also dangerous, although not as dangerous as cigarette smoking itself. My hon. Friend cited the 1988 Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health. To be fair, we should quote its findings a little more accurately: it identified an increase of

between 10 and 30 per cent. in the risk of contracting lung cancer for non-smokers who were habitually exposed to cigarette smoke, as opposed to people who were exposed to it by chance in public places. However, my hon. Friend was right to draw the committee's report to the attention of the House. He was also right to say that on good medical advice the Department of Health accepts it.
My hon. Friend also said that smoking by others in public places can sometimes be a nuisance. Recently I visited a restaurant with my wife. We were greatly annoyed when the couple who were sitting at an adjacent table started to smoke before we had even ordered our meal. The fact that people sitting adjacent to us in a public restaurant chose to smoke cigarettes ruined the prospect of our meal. It was obvious that the other people in that relatively small restaurant did not enjoy cigarette smoke, either. Smoking can be a nuisance.
As for the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham, it is important to recognise that smokers have rights, too. I defend the right to smoke pipes, cigarettes and cigars, but that right should not be exercised at the expense of those who do not smoke. It ought not to be exercised in public places. We must take every step possible to protect the rights of non-smokers. They are in the majority.
My hon. Friend said that there should be legislation to prohibit smoking on public transport. Smoking is already banned on the Underground, for safety reasons. As for aircraft, I join my hon. Friend in welcoming what British Airways and Air UK have done on domestic routes. Carriers have the right to ban all forms of smoking, if they so wish. The railways also have that power. I note that 80 per cent. of Network SouthEast trains already prohibit smoking, which is a higher proportion than on the rest of British Rail's network. Bus carriers also have the power to prohibit smoking. However, it would be difficult for them to enforce such a ban on the top deck of a double decker bus, particularly if there were only a driver and no conductor. My hon. Friend also referred to public eating places. An owner can ban cigarette smoking in his restaurant, if he so wishes. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Acton that it is up to public pressure; legislation is not appropriate.
As for places of public entertainment, cigarette smoking has largely been prohibited in cinemas. Employers already have the power in workplaces to prohibit smoking by employees. They can enforce that ban through the contract of employment. In schools, it is up to the local education authority. By agreement with staff, smoking can be prohibited in staff rooms.
I agree with the thrust of my hon. Friend's case. He has my sympathy. However, I have to admit that I am a smoker. I smoke a pipe and I enjoy a good cigar, but I do not smoke in public places. I have stopped smoking in the Department of Health, at Richmond house. Although I still enjoy smoking, I do so in private—either in my own house, through the tolerance of my wife, or out of doors. I do not smoke in public places because I am concerned about the effect on other people, and their reaction. In public places it is good manners to refrain from smoking. The general thrust of my hon. Friend's debate is not unwelcome. The points that he has made are wise and sensible, and we should all heed them.

Schizophrenia (Constituency Case)

Mr. Michael Jack: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me this opportunity to raise briefly a serious issue on behalf of my Fylde constituents. I want to raise with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health one of the most difficult constituency cases that I have had to deal with since I became a Member of Parliament. It concerns a young man who, for the sake of the debate, I shall call David, a schizohphrenic, and the problems that his mother faces in looking after him.
I shall never forget, when I first met David's mother, her asking, "What will he do when I am gone? Who will look after David?" She was referring to facilities in the community available to look after her son. He is schizophrenic, irrational, sometimes subject to the influence of alcohol and drugs and imagines that people will murder him. He finds it difficult to live in the community. He tries hard, but his condition is serious. He repels some of the help available to him such as day care, and even the community psychiatric nurse has had difficulty.
When I first encountered the case, I felt that I was in some sort of game of pass-the-parcel. I raised the matter with the district health authority which referred me to social services; I raised it with social services which referred me to the district health authority. I found it a most difficult case to make progress with. I am raising it tonight because I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary takes a keen interest in mental health matters. I have letters from David's mother, one of which reads:
I have nightmares about what the future holds for both David and myself—I love him dearly and have sorely tried from the beginning to be 'a prop' to him, but … at my age which is 68, I wonder what happens when I die.
This Christmas she went to his flat. He had had some surplus milk bottles which he had flung all over the place. She walked in on a carpet of glass. He had had a bad schizophrenic attack and had crushed his collection of records and cassettes.
David's mother is 68 and tries her best. She has commented favourably on the efforts that have been made since I intervened and asked Lancashire social services to help. It has provided a home help with whom he has formed some kind of relationship, but much of the help is somewhat tenuous. I asked the district health authority what might be done to help, but was confronted with a picture almost of despair. When I asked what it could do to help the seriously mentally ill or people with serious behavioural difficulties, I was told, "I am afraid that we do not have a facility to help a young man such as this. The best we can do is send him to a facility in Northampton. We have three people on whom we are spending some hundreds of thousands of pounds in providing care. Could there not be some funds for a supra-regional unit to look after people who suffer from this kind of condition?"
The White Paper on caring for people might be a blueprint for hope for mentally ill people in the community. I showed it to the local social services department for comment and was told, "We have ideas. We would like respite care, one-to-one care in the community and the opportunity to put a social worker or community worker at the young man's disposal, but where

are the resources? Can we be sure that in future the Government will give us the resources necessary to provide the intensive care which this type of person requires?"
The example that I have given, albeit briefly, is not unique. Schizophrenia is a widespread problem. Only today the Daily Mail wrote about it in human terms. It is a condition that many people find difficult to face. Margaret Wallace, a champion of schizophrenics and a journalist of note, recently presented an excellent television programme which showed that, to deal with schizophrenics in New York, warehouses with 750 iron beds in them are available to "look after" such people. That is a nightmare which haunts the mother of this young man.
I should like to hear from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary what hope he can offer David's mother and many others that the future will not be so bleak for those who suffer from this terrible condition.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) has done the House a great service by raising this subject. I very much hope that the House will have the opportunity to return to it at greater length and in greater depth than is possible tonight. In the time available I shall make five brief and simple points.
First, I do not believe that there is as deep an understanding of the affliction of schizophrenia as there should be in society and in the medical profession, particularly among general practitioners and primary care services. Early diagnosis means that early help is available to the family and the individual suffering. There should be a far greater understanding of how individuals can relapse throughout their lives. Schizophrenia can arise in the late teens. I have met a number of families who, to their great despair and amazement, have seen their children lapse into schizophrenia, sometimes diagnosed too late. The children then spend time in and out of psychiatric hospitals and then perhaps relapse into a chronic condition later in life, sometimes physically assaulting their parents, which is incredibly distressing.
I share with my hon. Friend a desire to bring out into the open this terrible disease so that, whether we are politicians, consultants or GPs, we are aware of the scale of the problem.
Secondly, the Government have continued the long-standing policy of seeking to care for those with mental illness as far as possible in the community. That is a humanitarian policy, but there are limits to the degree to which we can care for those with a mental illness, in their own homes, with their parents, sharing flats or in hostels. In my judgment, there will always be a need for state provision for asylum care which can be short and long term. There will always be a need for some provision of institutional care for those with a mental illness. I do not think that it is fair to portray our policy as moving entirely away from an institutional setting to a community setting. Therefore, for my hon. Friend's constituent there will always be a need for some hospital care.
Thirdly, from 1 April 1991 the Government will be introducing a new grant payable through regional health authorities to social services departments to help them to improve facilities available in the community for the mentally ill. We recognise that social services departments


do not spend enough of their resources on the care of the mentally ill in the community. It is 3 per cent. of their budgets. That is not sufficient. Therefore, the new grant will help in pump-priming—in the construction of new facilities, and in hiring additional social workers to care for those in the community. I frankly admit that in certain parts of the country the service is less than adequate. It is a function of historic policies and decision taken in good faith in the past.
Fourthly, from 1 April 1991 we shall be requiring all district health authorities, before they discharge any schizophrenic patient, to ensure that there is a proper plan for caring for that individual so that the health authority, the hospital and the consultant may know where the patient is going, how he can be contacted, who his friends are and what is his method of medical and social support in the community. That is most important, and I commend

the Royal College of Psychiatrists for producing a code of practice broadly similar to our discharge policy for hospitals.
Finally, it is most important that the Government facilitate the construction of more community care facilities. I am very pleased to repeat the announcement which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health made a few weeks ago about the creation of a capital loan fund. It is a major new initiative, and £50 million will be available to district health authorities to borrow from the loan fund to construct facilities in the community now and repay the money when the facilities which they replace are sold when they become empty and are no longer used. I hope that that will bring to fruition a much earlier construction of facilities in the community. I hope that that will help my hon. Friend and all those who suffer from mental illness.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.